REL: 9/26 /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 other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter . 

# SUPRE ME CO URT O F ALA BAMA

SPECI AL TE RM, 2 014

_____ _____ _____ _____ 11305 87

_____ _____ _____ _____ Alice Lynn Harp er Ta ylor

v. In th e mat ter o f the Esta te of Alic e Ear le F. Harp er, decea sed Appea l fro m Esc ambia Prob ate C ourt

(Prob ate N o.: 1 0058)

11308 84

_____ _____ _____ _____ Alice Lynn Harp er Ta ylor

v.In th e mat ter o f the Esta te of Alic e Ear le F. Harp er, decea sed Appea l fro m Mon roe P robat e Cou rt

(Prob ate N o.: 3 330)

BOLIN , Jus tice. These conso lidat ed appea ls invol ve the e s t a t e of Alice Earle F. Harpe r, decea sed (here inaft er the "dece dent" ). Alice Lynn Harpe r Taylo r, the deced e n t's daugh ter (here inaft er "Alic e"), appea ls in case no. 11305 87, pursu ant to § 12-22 -21, Ala. Code 1975, from the Escam bia Proba te Court 's admis sion to proba te of a 2007 will alleg edly execu ted by the deced ent and filed for proba te in the proba te court in Escam bia Cou n t y . Alice also appea ls in case no. 11308 84 from the Monro e Proba te Court 's order grant ing a motio n to dismi ss Alice 's petit ion to pr o b a te a 1995 will alleg edly execu ted by the deced ent and filedfor proba te in the proba te co urt i n Mon roe C ounty .

Facts and Proce dural Hist ory On March 1, 2013, the deced en t died in Monro e Count y. She had three adult child ren who survi ved her: Alice , Willi am C. Ha rper, and James R. H arper . Th e dec edent 's hu sbanddied in 20 02. On No vembe r 12, 2013 , Ali ce fi led i n Mon roe C ounty

a petit ion to proba te a 1995 w i l l alleg edly execu ted by the deced ent. In her petit ion, Alice ackno wledg ed that there was 211305 87; 1 13088 4

in exist ence a 2007 will that purpo rted to be the will of the deced ent. Alic e cha lleng ed th e val idity of t he 20 07 wi ll on

s evera l groun ds, inclu ding lack of menta l capac ity and the exist ence of a recip rocal will by the deced ent's husba nd that had b een a dmitt ed to prob ate i n 200 2. O n Dec ember 10, 2013, the M onroe Prob ate C ourt set a hear ing f or Ja nuary 28, 2014. On J anuar y 22, 2014 , the prob ate j udge recus ed hi mself from heari ng the petit ion. On Febru ary 20, 2014, this Court enter ed an or d er appoi nting a speci al proba te judge to hear the p robat e pro ceedi ngs i n Mon roe C ounty . Meanw hile, on Janua ry 8, 2014, Willi am filed a pe titio n in Es cambi a Cou nty t o pro bate a 200 7 wil l all egedl y exe cuted by the deced ent. On J a n u a ry 17, 2014, in the Escam bia Proba te Court , Alice filed a motio n to dismi ss and/o r to stay the p rocee ding in Es cambi a Cou nty u ntil the p roper venu e for the proba te proce eding was deter mined . Alice cited § 43-8- 21, Ala. C o d e 1975, which addre sses a situa tion like this one where there are multi ple proba te proce eding s, and argue d that under § 43-8- 21 the Monro e Proba te Court is the prope r venue . On Febru ary 19, 2014, the Escam bia Proba te Court admit ted the 2007 will to proba te and i s s ued lette rs testa menta ry to

311305 87; 1 13088 4

Willi am, as the perso n a l repre senta tive named in the 2007 will. On March 3, 2014, Alice fi l e d a notic e of appea l p u r suant to § 12-22 -21(2 ), Ala. Code 1975, which allow s an appea l to the circu it court or to the Alaba ma Supre me Court of

a proba te c o u r t 's "judg ment or order on an appli catio n claim ing the right to execu te a will or admin ister an estat e" (case no. 11305 87). On April 11, 2014, Willi am filed in the Monro e Proba te Court a motio n to dismi ss Alice 's petit ion to proba te the 1995 will. Wil liam argue d tha t the 2007 will revo ked a ll ea rlier wills and that the 2007 will gave the perso nal repre senta tive the right to choos e the count y i n w h i c h the will would be proba ted. On April 14, 2014, the Monro e Proba te Court grant ed Willi am's m o t i o n to dismi ss on the groun d that it lacke d subje ct-ma tter juris dicti on. Alice file d an appea l pur suant to § 12-22 -21 from the Monro e Proba te Court 's grant of the motio n to dismi ss her petit ion to proba te the 1995 will (case no. 1 13088 4). Discu ssion "The juris dicti on of the proba te court is limit ed to the matte rs submi tted to it by statu te." Walla ce v. S t a te, 507

411305 87; 1 13088 4

So. 2d 466, 468 (Al a . 1 987). The statu te gover ning the subje ct-ma tter juris dicti on of the proba te co urt, § 12- 13-1, Ala. Code 1975, provi des, in perti nent part, that the proba te court has origi nal and gener al juris dicti on as to all matte rs

enume rated in the statu te, which i n clude s the proba te of wills . The gener al v e n ue statu te setti ng out the venue for the prob a t e o f a will in Alaba ma is set out in § 43-8- 162, Ala. Code 1975, and provi des:

"Will s must be prove d in the sever al proba te court s as follo ws:

"(1) When the testa tor, at the time of his death , was an inhab itant of the count y, in th e pro bate court of s uch c ounty . "(2) When the testa tor, not being an inhab itant of the state , dies in the count y, leavi ng asset s there in, in the proba te co urt o f suc h cou nty. "(3) When the testa tor, not being an inhab itant of the state , dies out of the count y, leavi ng asset s there in, in the proba te of the count y in which such asset s, or an y par t the reof, are. "(4) When the testa tor, not being an inhab itant of the state , dies, not leavi ng asset s there in, and asset s there after come into any count y, in the proba te c o urt of a ny count y into which such asset s are broug ht.

511305 87; 1 13088 4

" (5) In the proba te court of the count y d e s i gnate d by testa tor in the will if the testa tor owns prope rty in such count y at the t ime o f his deat h." Secti on 43-8- 162 does not give prior ity to any one of the five venue s spe cifie d the rein as a venue wher e a w ill m ay be proba ted over anoth er. Secti on 43-8- 21 estab lishe s venue when

a proba te proce eding may be maint ained in more than one place in Al abama :

"(a) Where a proce eding under this chapt er could be maintai ned in more than one place in this state , the court in which the proce eding is first comme nced has t he ex clusi ve ri ght t o pro ceed. "(b) If proce eding s conce r n i n g the same estat e are commen ced in more than one court of this state , the court in which the proce eding w as first comme nced shall conti nue to hear the matte r, and the other court s shall hold the matte r in abeya nce until the questi on of venue is decid ed, and if the rulin g court deter mines that venue is prope rly in ano ther court , it shall trans fer the proce eding to the other court . "(c) If the court finds that in the inter est of justi ce a proce eding or a file shoul d be locat ed in anoth er cou r t of this state , the court makin g the findi ng may tra n sfer the proce eding or file to the other cour t." In the prese nt case, the deced ent died in Monro e Count y. Alice filed a petit ion to proba te the deced ent's 1995 will in Monro e Count y. It is undis p u t ed that the deced ent was

611305 87; 1 13088 4

domic iled in Mo nroe Count y at the t ime o f her deat h. Se ction 43-8- 162(1 ) provi des that venue is prope r in the proba te court where the deced ent was an inhab itant at the time of her death . Th i s Court has equat ed the term "inha bitan t" with the word "dom i c i liary ," and a domic ile consi sts of a resid ence at a parti cular place accom panie d by an inten t to remai n t h ere perma nentl y or for a n ind efini te le ngth of ti me. Ambro se v. Vande ford, 277 Ala. 66, 1 67 So . 2d 149 ( 1964) . Subse quent ly, Willi am filed a petit ion to proba te the deced ent's 2007 will in Escam bia Co unty. The 2007 will provi ded that Willi am, as the perso nal repre senta tive, had the discr etion to proba te the will in any count y were the deced ent owned prope rty at th e t i m e o f her death . It is undis puted that the deced ent owne d p roper ty in Escam bia Count y at the time of her death . Secti on 43-8- 162(5 ) provi des that proba te of a will is pr oper in th e cou nty d esign ated by th e tes tator i n t h e will if the testa tor owns prope rty in that count y a t the t ime o f her deat h. Alice chall enges the valid ity of the 2007 will; Wil liam chall enges the valid ity of the 1995 will. Both chall enges go to the merit s of the case, i.e., wheth er eithe r of the

711305 87; 1 13088 4

tende red wills is entit led to be admit ted to proba te, and, if
so, which one. Simpl y beca u s e Willi am has submi tted a will with a lat er da te, w hich purpo rts t o rev oke a ll pr ior w ills, does not mean that the 2 0 0 7 will is valid , nor does it mean that the Escam bia Proba te Court is the prope r v e n u e. The legis latur e has provi ded for the prope r ve n u e in proba te matte rs wh en mo re th an on e pro bate court has venue . Th at is what we have befor e us in this case. The Monro e Proba te Court is the prope r v e n u e under § 43-8- 162(1 ), and the Escam bia Proba te Cou r t i s the prope r venue under § 43-8- 162(5 ). The legis latur e has deter mined that when there are multi ple venue s for a proba te proce eding , the proba te court in w h i c h the proce eding was first comme nced shall have the exclu sive right to proce ed. § 43-8- 21(a) . Secti on 43-8- 21(b) provi des that if

m ultip le proce eding s are comme nced in more than one proba te court and those proce eding s invol ve the same estat e, then the proba te co urt w here the p rocee ding was f irst comme nced shall hear the matte r, and the other court shall hold the matte r in abeya nce u ntil the q uesti on of venu e is decid ed. Willi am cites DuBos e v. Weave r, 68 S o . 3d 814 (Ala. 2011) , for the propo siti o n that the admin istra tion of an

811305 87; 1 13088 4

estat e does not begin merel y u p o n the filin g in the proba te court of a petit ion for lett e r s of admin istra tion or of a petit ion to p r o bate a will and for lette rs testa menta ry. DuBos e invol ved a situa tion in which a party sough t to remov e the admin istra tion of the estat e from a proba te court to a circu it co urt u nder § 12- 11-41 . We conc ludedin D uBose that the c ircui t cou rt ha d not acqu ired juris dicti on, s tatin g:

"In regar d to the admin istra tion of estat es, the proba te c o urt is a court of gener al and origi nal juris dicti on. See Ala. Cons t . 1901, § 144; Ala. Code 1975, § 12–13 –1( b ). The circu it court can obtai n juris dicti on over a pendi ng admin istra tion of an estat e only by remov ing the admin istra tion from the proba te court to the circu it court pursu a nt to Ala. Code 1975, § 12–11 –41; see Ex parte Terry , 957 So. 2d 455, 457–5 8 (Ala. 200 6 ); Ex parte McLen don, 824 S o. 2d700, 704 (Ala. 2001 ). .. .

"'... .' "In Ex parte Smith , 619 So. 2d 1374, 1376 (Ala. 1993) , this Court state d that '[t]h e circu it court canno t initi ate the admin istra tion of an estat e, becau se the initi ation of admin istra tion is a matte r exc l u s ively in the juris dicti on of the proba te court .' As this Court more recen tly expla ined in Ex parte Berr y, 99 9 So. 2d 8 83 (A la. 2 008):

" ' I n stati ng in Ex parte Smith tha t "[t]h e circu it court canno t assum e juris dicti on over the admin istra tion of an estat e when the admin istra tion has not yet begun ," 619 So. 2d at 1375– 76, this Court w a s r e f e r r i n g t o s u b j e c t

- m a t t e r juris dicti on. "Subj ect matte r juris dicti on 911305 87; 1 13088 4

conce rns a court 's power to decid e certa in types of cases ." Ex parte Seymo ur, 946 So. 2 d 536, 538 (Ala. 2006) . Our decis ion in Ex parte Smith r elied on § 12–13 –1, Ala. Code 1975, which grant s proba te court s "orig inal and gener al juris dicti on" over all matte rs enume rated in that statu te, inclu ding the proba te of wills and dispu tes over the right of execu torsh ip and admin istra tion. ' "999 So. 2 d at 887–8 8 (em phasi s omi tted) . "Furt her, the admin istra tion of an e s t ate does not begin m e r e l y upon the filin g in the proba te court of a petit ion for lette rs of admin istra tion or of a petit ion for probate of a will and for lette rs testa menta ry. As to the forme r, t h i s Court has recog nized that 'the mere filin g of a petit ion for the admin istra tion of an es t ate does not in itsel f begin the admin istra tion; rathe r, the proba te court must act upon the petiti on and there by activ ate the proce ed i n g s , which may there after be subje ct to remov al to the circu it court .' Ex parte Smith , 619 So. 2d at 1376; see also, e.g., Allen v. Estat e of Judd i n e , 6 0 So. 3d 852, 855 (Ala. 2010) ('The admin istra tion of the estat e was initi ated b y the proba te court when it grant ed Willi e Jr. lette rs of admin istra tion. '); Ex parte Berry , 999 So. 2d at 886 ( ' [T]hi s Court in Ex parte Smith [, 619 So. 2d 1 3 7 4 (Ala. 1993) ,] held that r emova l of the will proce ed i n g from the proba te court to the circu it court was p r e matur e becau se the proba te court had not initi ated the admin istra ti o n of the estat e by actin g on the petit ion.' ); and E x parte Kelly , 243 Ala. 184, 187, 8 So. 2d 855, 857 (1942 ). As to the latte r, this Court has noted that, where no lette rs of gener al admi n i s trati on have issue d from the proba te court and where the deced ent's will has not yet been admit ted to proba te, the circui t court 'is witho ut juris dicti on to make an order ' remov ing the admin istra tion of the estat e from the proba te court 1011305 87; 1 13088 4

to the circu it court . Ex parte Pettu s, 245 Ala. 349, 351, 17 So . 2d 409, 410–1 1 (19 44)." 68 So. 3d at 821-2 2. DuBos e is disti nguis hable becau se it invol ved t he re moval of t he ad minis trati on of an e state from the p r obate court to the circu it court . Secti on 12-11 -41, Ala. Code 1975, expre ssly provi des that the circu it court can obtai n juris dicti on over a pendi ng admin istra tion of an estat e from a proba te court only by remov ing the admin istra tion from the p robat e cou rt. The " admin istra tion" of a n est ate, so as to allow the circu it court to have juris dicti on to order a

remov al, does not begin upon the mere filin g of a petit ion to proba te a will. Rathe r, the proba te court must act by grant ing the peti t i o n a nd openi ng an estat e, eithe r testa te or inte state , and issui ng the appro priat e proba te lette rs to a perso nal repre senta tiv e . Our holdi ng in DuBos e that "admi nistr ation " does not begin with the filin g of a petit ion to proba te a will is not analo gous with "comm encin g" a proba te proce eding under § 43-8- 21. Secti on 43-8- 21(b) invol ves venue as be tween mult iple proba te co urts, each with subj ect-m atter juris dicti on, and the quest ion is in which proba te c ourt is

venue prope r. For purpo ses of § 43-8- 21, "comm encin g" is the filin g of the petit ion to proba t e a will or admin ister an 1111305 87; 1 13088 4

estat e in the proba te c o u r t , where as remov al of a proba te pr o c e e d i n g to the circu it court is allow ed only when the proba te court has acted upon a petit ion and creat ed a proba te estat e. Based on the foreg oi n g , we hold that venue in this case is prope r in the Monro e Proba te Court , by virtu e of § 43-8- 162 and § 43-8- 21. A n y a rgume nt as to wheth er the 1995 will or the 200 7 w i l l is the valid last will and testa ment of the deced ent and entit led to admis sion to proba te is a quest ion on the merit s and has yet to b e d e t ermin ed. We rever se the judgm ent of the Escam bia Proba te Court admit ting the 2007 will to proba te and appoi nting Willi am as a perso nal repre senta tive becau se, under § 43- 8

- 2 1, the Monro e Proba te Court has the "ex c lusiv e right to proce ed." We reman d the cause (prob ate

no. 10058 ) to the Escam bia Proba te Court , which s h a l l set aside its order admit ting the 2007 will to pro b a te and appoi nting Will iam a s per sonal repr esent ative , rec allin g and revok ing any lette rs testa menta ry issue d there with. Willi am's petit ion filed in Escam bia Count y shall be held in abeya nce in

accor dance with § 43-8- 21(b) . We rever se the judgm ent of the Monro e Proba te Court becau se it erred in dismi ss ing Alice 's

1211305 87; 1 13088 4

petit ion to proba te t h e 1995 will. We reman d the cause (prob ate no. 3330) to the Monro e Proba te Court for proce eding s consi stent with this opin ion, i.e., to proce ed with Alice 's petit ion to proba te the 1995 will alleg edly execu ted by the deced ent in light of its statu s a s t h e first "comm enced " proba te pr oceed ing o f the dece dent' s est ate u nder § 43- 8-21. 11305 87 –- REVE RSED AND R EMAND ED. 11308 84 –- REVE RSED AND R EMAND ED. Moore , C.J., and Stuar t, Parke r, Murd ock, Shaw, Main, Wise, and Bryan , JJ. , con cur.

13