REL:07/03/2014

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 o t h er errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter . 

# SUPREME COURT O F ALA BAMA

SPECI AL TE RM, 2 014

_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ 11100 57

_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ Jewel Campbell et al .

v. Ethel C. T ayloret a l.

_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ 11101 04

_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ Glady s A. Campb ell a nd Pa ula B uettn er

v. Jewel Campbell et al . Appea ls fr om Ba ldwinCirc uit C ourt

(CV-0 9-900 617)11100 57; 1 11010 4

PER C URIAM . In case no. 11100 57, Jewel Camp b ell, Acie A. Campb ell, Willi am J. Campb ell, Jr., Roy J. Ca mp b ell, Eva Campb ell, Willi am C. Campb ell, Kelly Calve rt, and Amand a Gi vens ("the plain tiffs ") appea l from a summa ry judgm ent in favor of Ethel C. Taylo r, Paula Buett ner, Glady s A. Campb ell, Jason Benne tt, and Mendi Benne tt ("the defen dants ") in this dispu te stemm ing

1 from a judgm ent enter ed in 2006 in the adm i n i strat ion of an estat e. In case no. 11101 04, Paula Buett ner and Glady s A. Campb ell, two o f the abov e def endan ts, c ross- appea l fro m the denia l of their moti on to stri ke ce rtain affi davit s fil ed by the plain tiff s in oppos ition to the defen dants ' summa ryjudgm ent m otion . Fo r the reas ons d iscus sed b elow, we a ffirm the judgm e n t i n case no. 11100 57; our holdi ng in case no. 11100 57 re nders moot the cross -appe al, c ase n o. 11 10104 .

Facts and Proce dural Hist ory These appea ls invol ve a chall enge to the disp ositi on of the e s tate of A.V. Campb ell, Sr. (here inaft er somet imes refer red t o as "the testa tor") , who diedin 1 977. He h ad at least four child ren: A.V. Campb ell, Jr., Willi am J. Campb ell, The spelli ng of Mendi 's name appea rs in the record both 1 as "M indi" and as "M endi. " 211100 57; 1 11010 4

Sr., Ethel C. Taylo r, and Archi e Paul Campb ell. His will was 2 admit ted to proba te in 1977; those proce eding s langu ished in the proba te court until 2005. Du r i n g this time, A.V. Campb ell, Jr., and Archi e Paul Campb ell died. E t h e l w as ultim atelyname d the exec utrix of t he es tate. In 2005, Gl adys A. Campb ell, one of Archi e Paul Campb ell's desce ndant s, filed a petit ion under Ala. Code 1975, § 12-11 -41, to remov e the proba te proce eding s to the Baldw in 3 Circu it Court ("the 2005 circu it court actio n"). She alleg ed,

W i lliam J. Campb ell, Sr., had prede cease d his fathe r, 2 dying in 1 972. That Code secti on st ates: 3 "The admin istra tion of any estat e may be remov ed from the proba te court to the c i r c u it court at any time befor e a final settl ement there of, by any heir, d e v i s e e , l e g a t e e , d i s t r i b u t e e , e x e c u t o r , admin istra tor or admin istra tor with the will annex ed of any s u ch estat e, witho ut assig ning any speci al equit y; and an order of remov al must be made by the c ourt, upon the filin g of a sworn petit ion b y a n y such heir, devis ee, legat ee, distr ibute e, execu tor, admin istra tor or admin istra tor with the will annex ed of any such estat e, recit ing that the petit ioner is such heir, devis ee, legat ee, distr ibute e, execu tor, admin istra tor or admin istra tor with the will annex ed and that, in the opini on of the petit io n e r , such estat e can b e b etter admin ister ed in the circu it court than in t he pr obate cour t." 311100 57; 1 11010 4

among othe r thi ngs, that Ethel , as the e xecut rix, had f ailed to ha ve th e est ate's prop erty devis ed un der t he te rms o f the wil l . The case- actio n summa ry in the recor d for the 2005 circu it court actio n indic at e s that the follo wing perso ns 4

were ultim ately named parti es to the 2005 ci r c u i t court actio n: Ethel , who is the testa tor's daugh ter and execu trix; Paula Buett ner, Glady s, and Barba ra C a mpbel l, relat ives of Archi e Paul Campb ell; and Jewel Campb ell, Willi am J. Campb ell, Jr., Amand a Given s, and Kelly Calve rt, desce ndant s of Willi am J. Ca mpbel l, Sr . After sever al heari ngs, the circ u i t c ourt, on November 28, 2006, issue d a j u d g ment that, among other thing s, distr ibute d prope rty accor ding t o the testa tor's will ("the 2006 judgm ent") . Sp ecifi cally , cer tain prope rty w as aw arded separ atelyto ( 1) Et hel, (2) t o Pau la an d Gla dys, and ( 3) to "the heirs at law of Willi am J. Campb ell[, Sr.]. " Jewel appea le d f rom that judgm ent, and this Court affir med the circu it court 's judgm ent witho ut issui ng an opini on. Campb ell

We take judic ial not i c e o f the recor d in that actio n, 4 which came befor e this C o u r t i n a prior appea l discu ssed below . See Morro w v. Gibso n, 827 So. 2d 756, 762 (Ala. 2002) . 411100 57; 1 11010 4

v. Estat e of Campb ell (No. 10605 67, Sept. 28, 2007) , 22 So. 3d 531 ( Ala. 2007) (tab le). On June 2, 2009, t h e under lying actio n was filed in the Baldw in C i r c u i t Court ("the trial court "). The plain tiffs purpo rt to be t he he irs o f Wil liam J. Ca mpbel l, Sr . So me of the plain tiffs parti cipat ed in the 2005 circu it court actio n; other s did not. This new actio n was descr ibed as a "comp laint to set aside judic ial decre e" and w a s alleg ed to be filed "purs u a n t to Rule 60(b) of the Alaba ma Rules of Civil Proce dure as an indep enden t actio n for the purpo se of setti ng aside " the 2006 judg ment. The plai ntiff s con tende d tha t, as the heirs of Willi am J. Campb ell, Sr., they were also heirs of A.V. Campb ell, Sr., and were thus entit le d t o c ertai n

owner ship inter ests in the prop erty distr ibute d in the 2005 circu it court actio n. The plain tiffs furth er alleg e d that they had n ot al l bee n "na med a s par ties" in t he 20 05 ci rcuit court act i o n a n d that they "were not befor e the [circ uit court ] at the time of the final adju d i c a tion. " They thus alleg ed that they were "not subje ct to" and "not bound by" the 2006 judgm ent, and t h e y asked that it be set aside . Of the defen dants in the under lying actio n, Ethel , Paula , and Glady s

511100 57; 1 11010 4

parti cipat ed in the 2005 circu it co urt a ction ; Jas on Be nnett and M endi Benne tt di d not . After vario us motio ns and after grant ing a motio n by the defen dants to strik e certa in affid avit testi mony filed by the p l a i ntiff s, the trial court purpo rted to enter a summa ry judgm ent in favor of Ethel . The plain tiffs appea led, and the Court of Civil Appea ls dismi ssed the appea l a s b e ing from a nonfi nal judgm ent, Campb ell v. Taylo r , 7 6 So. 3d 258 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011) . The proce eding s resum ed in the trial court . Ethel again moved for a summa ry judgm ent. The remai ning defen dants also filed a motio n for a s u mm ary judgm ent. The plain tiffs respo nded with their own filin gs in oppos ition , and the defen dants moved to strik e certa in affid avi t t estim ony suppl ied b y the plai ntiff s wit h the ir op posit ion. The trial court , witho ut stati ng the findi ngs on which its decis ion was based , ultim ately grant ed the defen dants ' summa ry-ju dgmen t motio ns and denie d their motio ns to strik e. In case no. 11100 57, t he pl ainti ffs a ppeal the summa ry ju dgmen t in favor of the defen dants . In case no. 11101 04, P a u l a and Glady s

cross -appe al from the trial court 's denia l of their motio n to strik e.

611100 57; 1 11010 4 Discu ssion

Th e c ompla int in the under lying actio n sough t, pursu ant to Rule 60(b) , Ala. R. Civ. P., to set aside the 2006 judgm ent

as "void ," in subst ance, seeki ng relie f from the 2006 judgm ent under Rule 60(b) (4), Ala. R. Civ. P. ("[T] h e c o urt may relie ve a party or a party 's legal repre senta tive from a final judgm ent, order , or proce eding for the follo wing reaso ns: ... the judgm ent is void ...." ) . O n appea l, as in the trial court , the plain tiffs conte nd that a ll the plain tiffs were "nece ssary parti es" to the admin ist ratio n of the estat e but that some of th em di d not rece ive n otice of t he 20 05 ci rcuit court actio n, were not serve d with plead i n g s filed in that actio n, and were not prope rly named as parti es. Thus, the plain tiffs argu e, th e 200 6 jud gment is " void. "

"'The stand ard of revie w on appea l from the denia l of relie f under Rule 60(b) (4) is not wheth er there has been an abuse of discr etion . When th e grant or denia l of relie f turns on the valid ity of the judgm ent, as under Rule 60(b) (4), discr etion has no place . If the judgm ent is valid , it must stand ; if it is v o i d , it must be set aside . A judgm ent is void only if the court rende ring it lacke d juris dicti on of the su b j e ct matte r or of the parti es, or if it acted i n a manne r incon siste nt with due proce ss. Satte rfiel d

711100 57; 1 11010 4

v. Winst on Indus tries , Inc., 553 So. 2d 61 (Ala. 1989 ).' "Insu rance Mgmt. & Admin ., Inc. v. Palom ar Ins. Corp. , 590 So. 2d 209, 212 (Ala. 1991) . In other w o rds, if the under lying judgm ent is void becau se the trial court la cked subje ct-ma tter or perso nal juris dicti on or becau se the entry of t he judgm ent viola ted the defen dant' s due-p roces s right s, then the trial court has no discr etio n a nd must grant relie f und er Ru le 60 (b)(4 )." Allso pp v. Boldi ng, 86 So. 3d 952, 957 (Ala. 2011) . See also Bowen v. Bowen , 28 So. 3d 9, 14 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009) (hold ing that a Rule 60(b) (4) m o t i o n will be grant ed only when the prior judg ment is vo id an d not mere ly vo idabl e). It is under this stand ard that we revie w t h e t r i a l court 's rulin g; howev er, the plain tiffs on appea l d o not expli citlypres ent t heir argum ents in te rms o f the fram ework of the above thr e e groun ds--a lack of subje ct-ma tter juris dicti on, a lack o f p e rsona l juris dicti on over the p artie s, or a viola tion of due proce ss. Inste ad, they c i t e casel aw holdi n g g e neral ly that all heirs are prope r and

n e c essar y parti es in estat e actio ns like the 2005 circu it court actio n. See Jacob s v. Murph y, 245 Ala. 260, 263, 16 So. 2d 859, 862 (1944 ) (noti ng in the admin istra tion of an estat e

remov ed from the proba te court to the circu it court that "[i]n all suits in equit y respe cting the lands of deced ent his heirs 811100 57; 1 11010 4

at law are neces sary parti es"); Irwin v. Irwin , 227 Ala. 140, 1 4 1 , 148 So. 846, 847 (1933 ) (stat ing in the conte xt o f admin istra tion of an estat e remov ed from the proba te court to the c ircui t cou rt th at th e hei rs at law are " prope r par ties" and " neces sary to a full and c omple te re lief" ); an d Irw in v. J.S. Reeve s & C o . , 222 Ala. 647, 647-4 8, 133 So. 692, 692 (1931 ) (reje cting the a rgume nt that "the heirs of deced ent [and] distr ibute es of the estat e" are not "prop er parti es" in

an admin istra tion of an esta t e r emove d "into the equit y court "); see also Cook v. Castl eberr y, 233 Ala. 650, 653, 173 So. 1, 3 (1937 ) (stat ing that the admin istra tor of the estat e of a dece ased distr ibute e is a "nece ssary party " to the admin istra tion of an estat e in equit y). The lack of neces sary parti es, the plain tiffs argue , rende red th e 2 0 0 6 judgm ent "void ." This C o u r t has long refer red to a failu re to join a "nece ssary " or "indi spens able" party as a "juri sdict io n a l defec t." See Gilbe rt v. Nicho lson, 845 So. 2d 785, 790 (Ala. 2002) ("The absen ce of an indis pensa ble party is a j urisd ictio nal defec t that rende rs the proce eding void. " (citi ng D a v i s v . Burne tte, 341 So. 2d 118 (Ala. 1976) )); Roger s v. Smith , 287 Ala. 118, 123, 248 So. 2d 713, 717 (1971 ) 911100 57; 1 11010 4

("[T] he ab sence of n ecess ary o r ind ispen sable part ies . .. is

a juris dicti onal defec t ...." ). See also J.C. Jacob s Banki ng Co. v . Campbell , 40 6 So . 2d834 (Al a. 1 981); Joh nston

v. White -Spun ner, 342 So. 2d 754, 759 (Ala. 1977) ; and Burne tt

v. Munoz , 853 So. 2d 963 (Ala. Civ. App. 2002) . B u t s e e Holla nd v. City of Alaba ster, 566 So. 2d 224 (Ala. 1990) (addr essin g the issue of the absen ce of an indis pensa ble party

as one of error on the part of the trial court ). This is so,

even after the adopt ion i n 197 3 of Rule 19, A la. R . Civ . P., which addre sses the "Join der of Perso ns N e e d ed for Just Adjud icati on." Indee d, Rule 19 wholl y fails to speak in terms of juris dict i on, and nothi ng in that rule indic ates that if the c ourt fails to a ddres s the nece ssityor i ndisp ensab ility of a parti cular party or does addre ss, and errs with regar d to the r esolu tion of, R ule 1 9 con cerns , anyensu ing j udgme nt is

v oid. See Adams v. Boyle s, 610 So. 2d 1156, 1157 n.1 ( A l a . 1992) (reit erati ng "that failu re to join even an indis pensa ble partydoes not autom atica lly c ompel dism issal "). Other decis io n s a p p ear to refer to the joind er of

neces sary or indis pensa ble parti es as a statu tory requi remen t for certa in actio ns or as a requi remen t of "due proce ss." See Holla nd v. Flin n, 23 9 Ala . 390 , 392 , 195 So. 265, 267 ( 1940) 1011100 57; 1 11010 4

(stat ing that due proc e ss requi red the prese nce of certa in parti es so that those parti es "have their day in cou r t " and furth er notin g that, altho ugh "[t]h e Decla rator y Judgm ent Act

... requ i r e d neces sary parti es to be broug ht in," "the prese nce of neces sary parti es is juris dicti onal" ), and A.S. v. M.W., 100 So. 3d 1112, 1114 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012) (hold ing that a jud gment adju dicat ing p atern ity w as "v oid f or fa ilure to join ... an ind i s p e n sable party " requi red by Ala. Code 1975, § 26 –17–6 03). O ther refer ences to the lack of neces sar y o r indis pensa ble parti es impac ting "juri sdict ion" refer to issue s of perso nal juris dicti on. See Burne tt v. Munoz , 853 So. 2d at 965 (hold ing that the failu re to join a neces sary party rende red the trial court witho ut "juri sdict ion" to affec t the right s of that party ); Ho llandv. C ity o f Ala baste r, 56 6 So. 2d at 228 (noti ng that the trial court "must have juris dicti on

over the [ omitt ed pa rty] befor e pro ceedi ng to adju dicat e any issue s affec ting that enti ty's inter ests" ); Johns ton v. White -Spun ner, 342 So. 2d at 759 ("Ren derin g final judgm ent witho ut juris dicti on over those indis pensa ble parti es rende rs that judgm ent v oid." ); an d Rog ers v . Smi th, 2 87 Al a. at 123, 248 So. 2d at 717 ("A j u d g m e n t or decre e is not bindi ng on 1111100 57; 1 11010 4

anyon e unles s the court rende ring the same had juris dicti on of the p artie s andthe subje ct ma tter of th e cau se.") . Despi te the langu age in prior decis ions refer ring to the la c k o f a neces sary or indis pensa ble party as an issue of "juri sdict ion," it is clear that the court in the 2005 circu it court actio n posse ssed s u bject -matt er juris dicti on in that

case. Speci fical ly, a circu it court 's subje ct-ma tter juris dicti on is deriv ed from the Alaba ma Const ituti on and the Alaba ma Code. Ex parte S e y mour, 946 So. 2d 536, 538 (Ala. 2006) . Here, § 12–11 –41 clear ly autho rizes the circu it court to admin ister the estat e in that c a s e , which was prope rly

remov ed to the circu it court from the p r o b a te court . The inclu sion of a neces sary or indis pensa ble party is not what provi des the court with juris dicti on, a l t hough , in some insta nces, the lack of a neces sary or indis pensa ble party may depri ve the actio n, for purp o ses of justi ciabi lity, of the requi site adver sity. See St a mp s v. Jeffe rson Cnty. Bd. of Educ. , 642 So. 2d 94 1 (Al a. 19 94). The cases cited by the plain tiffs --Jac o b s and Irwin , supra --do not hold other wise. Speci fical ly, those cases refer to the neces sity of certa in parti es in an admin istra tion of an estat e remov ed from the p r o b ate court as a requi remen t to 1211100 57; 1 11010 4

exerc ise "juri sdict ion " in equit y. Jacob s state s that the "heir s at law are neces sary parti es" in actio ns invo l ving a d e c e dent' s lands , but this is for the purpo se of prope r l y

exerc ising equi table powe rs:

" ' All perso ns inter ested in a suit in equit y, an d whose right s will be direc t l y affec ted by the decre e, must be made parti es, unles s they a re too numer ous, o r s o m e of them are beyon d the reach of proce ss, or not in being ; an d i n e very case there must be such parti es befor e th e c o urt as to insur e a fai r tri al of the issue in b ehalf of a ll.'" Jacob s, 24 5 Ala . at 263, 16 So . 2d at 86 2 (qu oting Cull ey v. Elfor d, 187 Ala. 165, 172, 65 So. 381, 383 (1914 )). Irwin too notes the conne ction betwe en the prese nce of neces sary parti es and the prope r exerc ise of equit able power s, stati ng that the p r e s e n c e of "prop er parti es" is "nece ssary to a full and comp lete relie f, accor ding to the juris dicti on and rules in equit y .... That is, havin g the right and assum ing juris dicti on of the parti es and prope rties , equit y will grant full relie f." 227 Ala. at 141, 148 So. at 847. As Justi ce Murdo ck noted in his speci al writi ng in Ex parte Green , 58 So. 3d 135, 154-5 7 (Ala. 2010) , a court 's autho r ity to exerc ise equit able power s, somet imes re f erred to as "equi ty juris dicti on," is di stinc t fro m sub ject- matte r jur isdic tion. Thus the C ourt in Ja cobs noted , in the q uotat ion a bove, that 1311100 57; 1 11010 4

while "[a] ll pe rsons inte reste d in a sui t in equit y ... must be made parti es," some parti es may be excep ted when they "are too numer ous, ... beyon d the reach of proce ss, or not in being ." 2 45 Al a. at 263, 16 S o. 2dat 8 62. There needonly "be such parti es befor e the court as to insur e a fair trial of the issue in behal f of all." 245 Al a . a t 2 6 3, 16 So. 2d at 862. A l l such parti es are not requi red for the court to prope rly exerc ise equit able power ; the prese nce of all parti es is no t a p rereq uisit e to subje ct-ma tter juris dicti on. Given that § 12-11 -41 pr o v i ded the court in the 2005 circu it court actio n w i t h subje ct-ma tter juris dicti on, the 2006 judgm ent is not void for lack of subje ct-ma tter juris dicti on. We thus turn to the issue wheth er the 2006 judgm ent is "void " for lack of perso nal juris dicti on. When a party is 5 not serve d or joine d i n a n a c t ion and the trial court thus acqui res no juris dicti on over it , t he judgm ent is deeme d "void " "for purpo se[s] o f Rule 60(b) (4)." Ex parte Wilso n Lumbe r Co., 410 So. 2d 407, 409 (Ala. 1982) . See also Ex

There is no expli cit argum ent befor e u s t h a t the 2006 5 judgm ent was "void " on the groun d of lack of d u e proce ss; there fore, we d o not addr ess t hat R ule 6 0(b)( 4) gr ound. 1411100 57; 1 11010 4

parte Pate, 673 So. 2d 427, 429 (Ala. 1995) ("If a court lacks juris dicti on of a parti cular perso n, or if it denie d t h a t perso n due proce ss, then the court 's judgm ent is void. "), and Horiz ons 2000, Inc. v. Smith , 620 So. 2d 606, 607 (Ala. 1993) ("A judgm ent rende red again st a defen dan t in the absen ce of perso nal j urisd ictio n ove r tha t def endan t is void. "). First , we note that under certa in circu mstan ces the lack of perso nal juris dicti on is subje ct to waive r, i.e., "defe cts in perso nal juris dicti on ... c a n be waive d," which disti nguis hes perso nal juris dicti on from subje ct-ma tter juris dicti on, which "' m a y not be waive d; a court 's lack of subje ct-ma tter juris dicti on ma y be raise d at any t ime b y any party and may even be raise d by a court ex mero motu. '" J.T.

v. A . C . , 8 9 2 So. 2d 928, 931 (Ala. Civ. App. 2004) (quot ing C.J.L . v. M.W.B ., 868 So. 2d 451, 453 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003) ). See also Kingv ision Pay-P er-Vi ew, Ltd. v. Ayers , 886 So. 2d 45 (Ala. 2003) (hold ing that insuf ficie nt servi ce of proce ss may be waive d); Hall v. Hall, 122 So. 3d 185, 190 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013) ("'A defen se alleg ing a lack of perso nal juris dicti on becau se of insu ffici ency of se rvice of p roces s, ho wever , can be wa ived if th e def endan t sub mits himse lf or hers elf t o the

1511100 57; 1 11010 4

juris dicti on of the trial court .'" (quot ing Klaes er v. Milto n, 47 So. 3d 817, 820 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010) )); and Rule 12(h) (1), Ala. R. Ci v. P. ("A defen se of lackof j urisd ictio n ove r the perso n ... is waive d ... if it is neith er made by motio n under this rule nor i n c l u ded in a respo nsive plead ing or an amendment there of .. .."). Se c ond, the remov al of the admin istra tion of an estat e from the proba te c o u r t to the circu it court is not a new actio n, bu t simply t he co ntinu ation of t he ac tion in an other forum : "'[W] hen the admin istra tion of an estat e is remov ed from the proba te court to the ci r c u it court , the circu it court typic ally t akes the proce eding where the proba te court left off.' E x parte Farle y, 981 So. 2d 392, 396 (Ala. 2007) ; see also Estat e of Autry v. McDon ald, 332 So. 2d 377, 379 (Ala. 1976) ; Ex parte Steph ens, 233 Ala. 167, 169, 1 7 0 So. 771, 773 (1936 ) ('Whe n the circu it court , in the exerc ise of its unque stion ed ju risdi ction , reach ed out and broug ht befor e it for admin istra tion the estat e ..., it took o v e r that estat e, and the proce eding s had there in, just where they st o o d when the same were t a k en over. The order of remov al did not serv e t o set aside or t o a n n u l what had been prope rly done there tofor e in the proba te court , but rathe r to " p i ck up the proce eding s" where the proba te court had l eft o ff... .')." Sims v. Estat e of West, 90 So. 3d 770, 772-7 3 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012) . Thu s, wh en th e adm inist ratio n of an es tate is re moved

1611100 57; 1 11010 4

to the circu it court , the circu it court "p ick[s ] up the proce eding s whe re th e pro bate court had left off." Sim s, 90 So. 3d at 773 (inte rnal quota tion marks omitt ed) . Furth er, this Court has expli citlyheldthat noti ce to the parti es of the remov al under § 12-11 -41 of the admin istra ti o n o f a n estat e fro m t h e proba te court to the circu it court is not requi red: "[Sec tion] 12-11 -41 neith er expre ssly nor impli edly requi res that an y p a r t y recei ve notic e of a petit ion for

remov al .... Since remo v a l i s a matte r of right , notic e is

unnec essar y." Ex pa rte C layto n, 51 4 So. 2d 1 013, 1018 (Ala. 1987) . Porti ons of the proba te court recor d inclu ded in the 2005 circu it court actio n i n d i cate that Jewel and Willi am J. Campb ell, Jr., both fileda "w aiver of n otice and conse nt to proba te" in the proba te proce eding . Addit ional ly, the proba te

c ourt, on April 22, 1977, appoi nted a guard ian ad litem f o r R o y and Acie, who were minor s at the time, and orde r e d t h a t they and their mothe r be serve d with notic e of the proba te court proce eding . Anoth er docum e n t indic ates that the guard ian ad litem subse quent ly appea red befor e the court in the proce eding s and filed a plead ing "deny [ing] each and every

1711100 57; 1 11010 4

alleg ation conta ined in such proce eding s and deman d[ing ] proof there of." For all that appea rs, these four plain tif f s were parti es to the proba te court actio n; no notic e to them was requi red when the actio n was trans ferre d to the circu it court . Clayt on, supra . Thus, a lack of perso nal juris dicti on as to 6 these part ies h as no t bee n dem onstr ated. Kell y C a l v ert and Amand a Given s were not parti es to the origi nal proba te court actio n. Both, howev er, were named as 7 parti es in the 2005 circu it court a c tion and both were repre sente d by the same co u n sel who repre sente d Jewel and Willi am J. Campb ell, Jr., altho ugh that couns el later withd rew from repre senti ng Amand a, who then proce eded pro s e . N o chall enge to the circu it court 's exerc ise of perso nal juris dicti on is found in the recor d of the 2005 circu it court actio n; any issue as to perso nal juris dicti on was there fore

Furth er, both Jewel and Willi am J. Cam p b e l l, Jr., 6 actua lly p artic ipate d in the 2 005 c ircui t cou rt ac tion: both were repre sente d by couns el. Jewel even filed an appea l from the court 's j u dgmen t. See Campb ell v. Estat e of Campb ell, supra . Kelly and Amand a's mothe r, J a n ice Calve rt, who died in 7 1987, was a party to that case and, like Jewel and Willi am J. Campb ell, Jr., filed a "waiv er of notic e and conse nt to proba te" i n tha t pro ceedi ng. 1811100 57; 1 11010 4

waive d. J.T., supra ; Hall, supra ; and Rule 12(h) (1), Ala. R. Civ. P. Eva and Willi am C. Campb ell were not yet born at the time of the initi ation of t h e proba te court proce eding s. Their fathe r, Denni e Rudol ph C a mpbel l, had been a party to those proce eding s and had also filed a "waiv er of notic e and conse nt to p r o bate. " Denni e died in 1999. Nothi ng befor e us indic ates what happe ne d in the proba te court regar ding his inter ests after he die d : i t appea rs that no sugge stion of death was filed and that no subst ituti on of parti es under Rule 25, A la. R . Civ . P., occu rred. 8 E v a and Willi am C. Campb ell claim to be heirs of A . V . Campb ell, S r ., throu gh Denni e and argue that they were thus

neces sary par t i e s to the 2005 circu it court actio n; they there fo r e conte nd that their failu re to be named as parti es rende r s t he 2006 judgm ent "void ." Again , as we held above , the failu re to join a neces sary party did not rende r the 2006

Testi mony in the r e c o rd indic ates that both Eva and 8 Willi am C. C ampbe ll were actua lly prese nt at the court house durin g hea rings condu cted in the 2005 circu it court actio n; for all that appea rs, they had actua l notic e t h at the admin istra tion of the estat e was proce eding in the ci r cuit court . 1911100 57; 1 11010 4

judgm ent void for lack o f subje ct-ma tter juris dicti on. In their brief on appea l, the plain tiffs do not prese nt a direc t argum ent as to the issue of perso nal juris dicti on; inste ad, they rely on th e arg ument that the lack of ne cessa ry pa rties itsel f rende red the judgm e n t void. In suppo rt of that argum ent, they cite Maxwe ll v. State , 656 So. 2d 882 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995) , andMick ens v . Cal ame, 497 S o. 2d505 (Ala. Civ. App. 1986) . Ma xwell stan ds fo r the gene ral p ropos ition that Rule 60(b) (4) relie f i s appli cable when the court that enter ed the prior judgm ent "eith er lacke d subje ct matte r juris dicti on, lacke d perso nal juris dicti on over one or more of the parti es, or other wise funct ioned in a manne r which was not consi stent with the princ iples of due proce ss." 656 So. 2d at 884. Micke ns stand s for the propo s ition that a defau lt judgm ent may be set aside as "void " under Rule 60(b) (4) where the s ummon s andcomp laint "fai l[ed] to c onfor m" wi th Ru le 4, Ala. R. Ci v. P. 9

They furth er cite in their reply brief J o h n s ton v. 9 White -Spun ner, supra , and Roger s v. Smith , supra , both of which , as notedabov e, in dicat e tha t a j udgme nt is "voi d" if the trial court did not have subje ct-ma tt e r o r perso nal juris dicti on. 2011100 57; 1 11010 4

Neith er of the s e d e cisio ns addre sses wheth er a proba te court or, after remov a l o f proce eding s under § 12-11 -41, a circu it court has perso nal juris dicti on over the heirs to the estat e of one who was previ ously a prope r party in the case. 1 0 And those cases do not demon strat e that t h e failu re to join Eva a nd Wi lliamC. C ampbe ll in the 2005 circu it co urt a ction

re n d e r e d the 2006 judgm ent "void " for purpo ses of Rule 60(b) (4). Rule 28(a) (10), Ala. R. App. P., requi res that the parti es prese nt in the i r brief the legal autho ritie s that suppo rt their posit i o n . "If they do not, the argum ents are waive d." White Sands Grp., L.L.C . v. PRS II, LLC, 998 So. 2d 1042, 1058 (Ala. 2008) . Given that the lack of perso nal juris dicti on is subje ct to waive r, see R ule 12(h) (1), and J.T. , 8 9 2 S o . 2d at 931, and that no autho rity is prese nted showi ng that the court in the 2005 circu it court actio n lacke d perso nal juris dicti on, the plain tiffs have not demon strat ed on appea l tha t the ir Ru le 60 (b)(4 ) mot ion w as du e to be gr anted f o r l a ck of perso nal juris dicti on over Eva and Willi am C. Campb ell. See Cleme nts v. Cleme nts, 990 So. 2d 383, 396 (Ala.

I n d e ed, anoth er case cited on appea l, Cook, supra , 10 sugge sts that the admin istra tor of Denni e ' s estat e was a neces sary party . 2111100 57; 1 11010 4

Civ. App. 2007) (hold ing that a perso nal-j urisd ictio n argum ent

was "waiv ed and this court will not consi der it for the first time on ap peal" ), an d Ex parte Phil Owen s Use d Car s, In c., 4 So. 3d 418, 428-2 9 (Ala. 2008) (Murd ock, J., concu rring in the ratio nale in part and concu rring in the r esult (citi ng Rule 28(a) (10) and concl uding that a party had not o n appea l suffi cient ly argue d that perso nal juris dicti on did not exist )); cf. Pruit t v. Palm, 6 7 1 S o . 2d 105 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995) (affi rming the den i a l o f a motio n under Rule 60(b) chall engin g a judgm ent as void for lack o f perso nal juris dicti on becau se the recor d was silen t as to the facts and alleg ation s suppo rting the appel lant' s argum ents) . For these

reaso ns, the trial co u r t's summa ry judgm ent denyi ng the plain ti f f s ' Rule 60(b) (4) motio n, case no. 11100 57, is aff i r m e d. Our holdi ng in case no. 11100 57 rende rs moot the chall enge prese nted in the cross -appe al, case no. 11101 04, and we di smiss that appe al. Concl usion The trial court 's judgm ent in favor of t he defen dants denyi ng the plain tiffs ' Rule 60(b) (4) motio n is affir med; the

cross -appe al is dism issedas m oot.

2211100 57; 1 11010 4

11100 57 -- AFFI RMED. Moore , C.J., and Bolin , Parke r, S haw, Wise, and Bryan , JJ., concu r. Murdo ck, J., concu rs in the ratio nale in part and concu rs in th e res ult. Main, J., concu rs in the resul t. 11101 04 -- APPE AL DI SMISS ED AS MOOT . Moore , C.J., and Bolin , Parke r , Murdo ck, Shaw, Main, Wise, and Bryan , JJ. , con cur.

2311100 57; 1 11010 4

MURDO CK, Justi ce (conc urrin g in the ratio nale i n part and concu rring in the resul t in case no. 11100 57 and concu rring in case no. 1 11010 4). I agree with the analy sis of the main opini on in case no. 11100 57 with respe ct to wheth er a judgm ent is "void " for lack of joind er of neces sary or indis pensa ble parti es. I would add that Profe ssors Wrig ht an d Mil ler a lso a re in "agr eemen t":

"Beca use an o bject ion to the failu re to join a perso n who shoul d be regar ded as indis pensa ble under Rule 19(b) may be raise d as late as on an appea l from a final judgm ent or by the court on its own motio n, the impre ssion is creat ed that a failu re to join is juris dicti onal, since ordin arily only juris dicti onal defec ts are treat ed in this fashi on. Thus, it is not surpr ising t h a t cases can be found that speak o f n onjoi nder as ousti ng the court of juris dicti on. Since the indis pensa ble-p arty doctr ine is equit able both in its origi n and natur e, howev er, schol arly comme ntary a s well as the vast major ity of court s rejec t this 'juri sdict ional ' chara cteri zatio n." Charl es Alan Wrigh t, Arthu r R. Mille r & Mary Kay Kane, Feder al Pract ice & Proc edure § 16 11 (3 d ed. 2001 ) (emphasi s add ed). I do not agree with the ratio nale o f f ered by the main opini on, howev er, for affir ming the trial court 's judgm ent as to s o m e of the plain tiffs . The main opini on reaso ns that "this Court has expli citly held that notic e to the parti es of th e remov al under § 12-11 -41[, Ala. Code 1975, ] of the admin istra tion o f a n estat e from the proba te court to the

2411100 57; 1 11010 4

circu it co urt i s not requ ired. " ___ So. 3d a t ___(emp hasis added ; empha sis omitt ed). Be that as it may, the issue befor e

us does not conce rn a l a c k o f n otice of the remov al of the adm i n i strat ion of the estat e, but a lack of notic e and an oppor tunit y to p a r t icipa te in a parti cular proce eding initi ated by a petit ion f iled some 28 ye ars a fter the e state proce eding s we r e initi ated. Speci fical ly, the conte ntion befor e us is that some of the plain tiffs did not recei ve notic e or an oppor tunit y to respo nd to a petit ion filed in 2006 or to parti ci p a t e i n the proce eding s that ensue d from 1 1 that petit ion and that resul ted in what t h e m a i n opini on refer s to as t h e 2 0 0 6 judgm ent. I canno t agree that merel y becau se Jewel Campb ell, Willi am J. Cam p b ell, Jr., Acie A. Campb ell, and R oy J. Camp bell were not e ntitl ed to noti ce of the remov al in 2005 of the admin istra tion of the estat e of A.V. Campb ell, Sr., from the proba te court to the c i r c u it court , they also were not entit led to notic e of the 2006

The main opini on uses the term "2005 circu it court 1 1 actio n." The estat e-adm inist ratio n proce eding s were initi ated in 1977 and w e r e r e m o ved to the circu it court pursu ant to a remov al pe t i t i o n f i led in June 2005. The dispu te as to the owner ship of certa in land that was adjud icate d in the 2 0 06 judgm ent, howev er, was the subje ct of a speci f i c petit ion seeki ng th at ad judic ation file d on July 10, 2 006. 2511100 57; 1 11010 4

petit ion and an oppor tunit y to parti cipat e in the proce eding s ensui ng th erefr om. That said, as to Jewel Campb ell and Willi am J. Campb ell, Jr., I would affir m the 2 0 0 6 judgm ent (as does the main opini on), but I would do so on the diffe rent groun d that both of th ose p artie s eit her r eceiv ed no tice of th e 200 6 pet ition and the ensui ng proce eding s and/o r did in fact parti cipat e in those proce eding s in a manne r suffi cient to give rise to a waive r of any d efici ency in hi s or her n otice of t he sa me. As to Acie and Roy, I also would affir m on a diffe r ent groun d than that state d in the main opini on. Elsew here in the main opini on, it is state d that "the plain tiffs do not prese nt

a direc t argum ent as to the issue of perso nal juris dicti on; inste ad, they rely on the argum ent that the lack of neces sary parti es itsel f rende red the judgm ent void. " ___ So. 3d at

___. That is, we are n o t p r e s e nted in this appea l with an argum ent diffe renti ating among the plain tiffs for purpo ses of appli catio n of the princ iples of in perso nam juris dicti on (or, for that matte r, the doctr ine of res judic ata) in relat ion to the 2006 judgm ent. As discu ssed, the argum ent tha t the judgm ent as a w h o le is void for failu re to join neces sary

2611100 57; 1 11010 4

p a rties is witho ut merit . I there fore concu r in the res u l t reach ed by the main op i n i o n a s to Acie and Roy in case no. 11100 57.

27