FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T FEB 6, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 13 73 2 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 3 :0 9- cv -0 02 55 -WK W -TFM THE ESTA TE OF JACQUELINE MCCARN INGRUM , ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Plai nt iff - App el lant
ver su s FINANCIAL FREEDOM SENIOR FUNDING CORP ., INC., ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt , PACIF IC REVERSE M ORTGAGE, INC., SECRETARY U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HUD, FINANCIAL FREEDOM AQUISITION, LLC, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt s - Ap pe ll ees .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Feb ru ary 6, 2 01 2)Befo re BARKETT, HULL andBLACK, Cir cu itJu dg es .

PER CURI AM: The Est at e o f Ja cque li ne McC arn Ing ru m (“ th e Est at e”) app eal s t he di st ric t
co urt’s s umm ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of Paci fic Rev ers e Mo rtg ag e, In c. (“ Paci fic ”), Fi na nc ia l Fr eed om

Acqu is it io n, LLC (“ Fi nanc ia l Fr eed om ”), an d t he Secr et ary of th e U.S. Depa rtment o f Hou si ng an d Urb anDeve lo pm en t (“ th e Sec ret ary”), in t he Est at e’s act io n s eek in g ade cl arat ory jud gm en t an d q ui et in g o f ti tl e to real pro pe rty kn own as “ Hom ep la ce.” Th e o rig in al own er o f Hom ep la ce, J acque li ne McC arn In grum , di edin 20 04 , andhe r so n, J erry G. Ing ru m , was ap po in te d e xe cu to r of he r wil l. Act in g a s ex ecu to r, In grum co nv ey edHom ep la ce t o h im se lf a ndto okou t two m ortg ag es on th e p ro pe rty with Paci fic an d t he Secr et ary. The g ran dc hi ld ren of Jac qu el in e In gr am , who were n am edin th e wil l an d c la im edanin te res t i n t he pr op erty , su edinAlab am a Pro ba te Co urt s eek in g, in te r a li a , to setasi de th e
m ortg ag es . On Oct ob er 1 9, 2 00 7, t he Alab am a Pro ba te Co urt ru le d t ha t In grum 's de edto hi m se lf wa s v oi d andth atth e m ortg ag es di d n otatt ach to Hom ep la ce,
rem ov edIng ru m

as e xe cu to r, an d app ro ve d atra ns fer o f Hom ep la ce fr om Ing ru m to th e g ran dc hi ld ren by qui tc la im de ed . Howev er, n ei th er Fi na nc ia l Fr eed om , th e
as si gn ee o f Pac ifi c’s m ortg ag e, no r th e Sec ret ary rece iv edno ti ce o f th e St at e Pro ba te Co urt p ro ceed in gs pri or to th e en try of the ord er.

2Fi na nc ia l Fr eed om an d t he Secr et ary refu se d t o re le as e th e m ortg ag es , pr ot es ti ng th atth e Oct ob er 1 9 o rd er was vo idforlac k o f no ti ce. The Est at e th en
su edPaci fic , Fin an ci al Free do m , andth e Sec ret ary (co ll ect iv el y , “ th e
m ortg ag ees ”), i n Al ab am a Ci rcu itCo urt s eek in g d ecl arat ory jud gm en t an d qu ie ti ng of t it le ag ai ns t t he m an d c la im in g s la nd er o f ti tl e. The S ecre ta ry rem ov ed th e cas e to fed eral di st ric t co urt p ur su an t t o 2 8 U.S.C. § § 1 44 4 a nd24 10 (a). Th e di st ric t co urt g ran te d s umm ary jud gm en t t o t he m ortg ag ees on all cla im s, ru li ng th e St at e Pro ba te Co urt’s Oct ob er 1 9 o rd er v oi d a s i nc on si st en t wi th du e p ro ces s, qu ie ti ng ti tl e to Hom ep la ce i n J erry Ing ru m , andrul in g tha t t he m ortg ag es on th e pr op erty are v al id . The Es ta te no w app eal s, ch al le ng in g e ach of t he se rul in gs . 1 A. Decl ar at or y J udg m ent Cl ai m The Est at e fi rs t ar gu es th atth e d is tri ctco urt’s d et erm in at io n t ha t t he
The portions of the w ill relevant to the issues pre sented he re pr ovide as follows: 1 Item VI
. To my son, J err y G. Ing rum, Ig ive, devise a nd bequeath the rea l property or the “HomePlac e” a s descr ibed in Ex hibit “A” attac hed to be use d for a nd duringhis lifetime as a place to live. I f Jerry

Ing rum should sell said Homeplace , it is m y desire that the proce eds of the sale be divided as follows: A.) F ifty pece nt (50%) to Jerry

G. Ing rum B.) Remainingfifty

perc ent (50%) to be divided equa lly betwee n my

two grandc hildren, J ulie Ing rum Brown and Char les M. Ing rum, J r. Item VI I
. I here by g ive, devise, and bequeath the rest, residue and rema inder of my estate whether the same be rea l proper

ty , persona l or mix ed to my son J ERRY G
. I NGRUM, in f

ee simple to dispose of as he deems fit and pr oper. 3Octo be r 19 , 20 07 ord er i ss ue d b y th e Alaba m a Pro ba te Co urt i s v oi d a s in co ns is te ntwit h due pro ces s b ecau se ne it he r Pac ifi c, Fi na nc ia l Fr eed om , no r th e Secr et ary rece iv edno ti ce i s erro ne ou s. Sp eci fic al ly, th e Est at e arg ue s tha t t he se
m ortg ag ees were n oten ti tl edto no ti ce o f th e Pro ba te Co urt p ro ceed in g b ecau se , it cl ai m s, t he y

were n otbo nafid e m ortg ag ees , andth ey were es se nt ia ll y

no ti fie d o f th e Est at e’s in te res t i n Ho m ep la ce t hr ou gh publ ic reco rd s m ai nt ai ne d b y th e Pro ba te Co urt. We fin d t hi s co nt en ti on m eri tl es s. The Due P ro ces s C laus e p ro te ct s an in te res te d p art y ’s rig htto be no ti fie d o f
anop po rtu ni ty to as se rt i ts de fen se s, re ga rd le ss of wh ethe r th ey ul ti m at el y

ha ve
m eri t. See Pera lt a v . Heig ht s M ed . Ctr ., Inc ., 48 5 U.S. 8 0, 8 6- 87 (19 88 ). An in te res t-h ol de r’s bo nafid e st atus is a de fen se ag ai ns t an ot he rwis e supe rio r cl ai m ari si ng fro m

pri orequi ty or co nv ey an ce. See Orso v. Ca te r, 13 3 S o. 2 d 8 64 , 86 7 (Ala . 19 61 ). Thu s, re ga rd le ss of wh ethe r th e m ortg ag ees rece iv edno ti ce o f th e Est at e’s co m

pe ti ng in te res t i n Ho m ep la ce, due pro ces s n ev ert he le ss requi redth at th ey be no ti fie d o f th e Pro ba te Co urt p ro ceed in gs in whi ch th ey m ig htass ertth is de fen se . See Per al ta , 48 5 U.S. at84
. The fa ctth atth e m ortg ag ees m ay ha ve 2
The c ases c ited by

the Estate do not addr ess the issue of a non-bona- fide mortg ag e- 2 holder’s e ntitlement to noti ce of a proc eedingag ainst the mortg ag ed prope rty , nor do they involve any

due proc ess claims. See L ongv. Vielle, 549 So. 2d 968, 973 (Ala. 1989) (notingthat interest-holde r “a ctually

testified at the tria l of this matter” a nd “had a mple opportunity

to be hear d” on issue of va lidity of title); First Ala. B ank of Huntsvill e v. Ke y , 394 So. 2d 67, 68-69 (Ala. 1981) (voidingjudgme nt of conde mnation beca use holder of

judgme nt was not a bona fide 4rece iv edno ti ce o f th e Est at e’s co m pe ti ng in te res t i n Ho m ep la ce i n n o way
co m pr om is edth ei r ri gh t t o re cei ve no ti ce o f th e Pro ba te Co urt p ro ceed in g i n whi chth e v al id it y

of t he m ortg ag es was a dju di cat ed
. 3 B. Qui et Ti tle Cla im The Est at e n ex t ar gu es th atJerry Ing ru m rece iv edon ly a life est at e in Hom ep la ce u nd er t he wil l an d t ha t t he gra nd ch il dr enwere b eque athe d t he
rem ai nd er i nt eres t. The di stric t co urt re jecte d thi s ar gu m en t o n t he ba si s o f th e pl ai n l an gu ag e in th e wil l. The di st ric t co urt h el d tha t t he wil l’s p ro vi si on be qu eathi ng Hom ep la ce t o J erry Ing ru m “ to be us edforan d dur in g h is li fet im e as
interest-holde r); L eslie v. Click, 128 So. 2d 170, 172 (Ala. 1930) ( holding that title in subsequent purcha ser wa s subject to prior mortg ag e bec ause pur chase r had notice of the mortg ag e). Although N eal v. Ne al, 856 So. 2d 766 (Ala. 2002), unlike the se other c ases, did involve a due proce ss challeng e to the validity of a prior judgment, the Alaba ma Supreme Court in Ne al held that the par

ty alleg edly deprive d of due pr ocess, the F lorida Attorney Gene ral, wa s not require d to rec eive notice beca

use F lorida had no inter est in a cha ritable trust that wa s administered in Alabama . See Ne al, 856 So. 2d at 780-81. He re, the re is no disputing that the mortg ag es ar e a form of pr operty

under A labama la

w that g ave the mortg ag ees a n interest at stake in the Probate Court proce eding s. See Tra uner v. L owre y , 369 So. 2d 531, 534 (Ala. 1979) ( “Execution of a mortg ag e passe s leg al title to the mortga g ee.” ). We do not address the Estate’s ar guments that the mortg ag ees w ere not denied due 3 proce ss beca

use their inter ests wer e virtually repr esente d by

J err y Ingrum in the Probate Court proce eding , see EE OC v. Pemco Aer oplex, I nc., 383 F .3d 1280, 1286-87 (11th Cir. 2004) (explaining doc trine of virtua l repre sentation), and that the district court improper ly sat as an appellate court ove r the Probate Court’s ruling s, in violation of D.C. Court of Appeals v. Fe ldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). The Estate ra ised both arguments for the f irst time in it s Rule 59(e) motion for rec onsideration despite the fac t that these ar guments could have been ma de befor e the district cour

t’s summary

judgme nt. See Wilchombe v. TeeV ee T oons, Inc., 555 F .3d 949, 957 (11th Cir. 2009) (“ A motion for re consideration cannot be use d to relitigate old matters, raise a rgument or pre sent evidenc e that could have bee n raised prior to the entry of judg ment.”) (interna l quotation marks omitted). 5a p la ce t o l iv e” cr eat eda li fe es ta te in Jerry Ing ru m an d t ha t In grum

als o i nh eri te d th e rem ai nd er i nt eres t i n t he pro pe rty thr ou gh th e wil l’s re si du ary cl au se . Und er Alab am a la w, th e two in te res ts m erg e in to a fee s im pl e ab so lu te . See Kin ardv. Jo rd an , 64 6 S o. 2 d 1 38 0, 1 38 3 (Al a. 19 95 ). The Es ta te co nt en ds th atth is ho ld in g
was erro r be cau se , itarg ue s, t he wil l cr eat es a rem ai nd er i nt eres t i n the gr an dc hi ld ren by pro vi di ng th atif J erry Ing ru m sel ls Hom ep la ce, “ itis m y de si re th atth e p ro ceed s o f th e sa le be di vi de d” in ha lf, wi th ha lf t o b e d iv id edequa ll y
am on g t he gra nd ch il dr en . Howev er, thi s cl au se be gi ns with t he ph ras e “ itis m y de si re”, t he refo re, i t i s pr ecat ory on ly anddo es no t co nv ey a rem ai nd er i nt eres t t o the gra nd ch il dr en . See Nev inv. Nev in , 36 6 S o. 2 d 2 66 , 26 8 (Al a. 19 79 ) (“ W or ds of e nt reat y , reque st , de si re, wis h, o r rec omm en da ti onem pl oyed i n wi ll s” are p reca to ry on ly and th eref or e “ are d is ti ng ui sh ab le fro m di rectan d i m

pe rat iv e te rm s.”) . The Es ta te arg ue s t ha t wo rd s ex pr es si ng a de si re o r wis h h av e b een in te rp ret edas i m pe rat iv e, bu t t hi s h as be endo ne on ly in o rd er t o g iv e eff ectto th e p la in m ean in g o f th e
wor ds . Thu s, i n B la ckv. Bl ack , th e Alaba m a Supr em e Co urt co ns tru edth e p hr as e

“ [i]t i s my

de si re t ha t al l my

pro pe rty be h el d i nt actfora nu m be r of y ears aft er m

y de ath, as wil l b e se t fo rth m or e fu ll y he rei nb el ow” as i m

pe rat iv e d ire ct io ns th atth e wil l ex ecu to rs sh ou ldno t s el l an y po rti onof t he est at e u nt il ot he r co nd it io ns 6de no te d i n t he wil l h adbe enm et . 23 8 S o. 2 d 8 61 , 86 7 (Al a. 19 70 ) (em ph as is ad de d) . Here, by con tra st , th e p hr as e th atth e Est at e arg ue s cr eat es a rem ai nd er in te res t i n t he gra nd ch il dr enco nt ai ns no refe ren ce t o arem ai nd er i nt eres t, b ut
m erel y ex pr es se s t he tes ta to r’s wis he s i n t he ev en t Ho m ep la ce i s s ol d. There fo re, 4 we rejectth e Est at e’s co nt en ti onth atth e sa le claus e m us t b e rea d a s s om eh ow be qu eathi ng a rem ai nd er i nt eres t t o t he gra nd ch il dr en . The Est at e al so arg ue s t ha t, ev enif the pl ai n l an gu ag e o f th e wil l d oe s n ot be qu eath arem ai nd er i nt eres t t o t he gra nd ch il dr en , th e wil l i s ambig uo us an d sh ou ldbe in te rp ret edwit h p aro l ev id en ce. Par ol ev id en ce i s i na dm is si bl e to sh ow th e te st at or ’s in te ntun le ss th e wil l co nt ai ns lat en t am bi gu it y . See Ham il to n v . Em pl oyees’ Ret . Sy s., 1 4 S o. 3 d 8 39 , 84 3 (Al a. 20 09 ). “ [A] late ntam bi gu it y
oc cu rs wher e th e la ng ua ge is cle ar an d i nt el li gi bl e, bu t wh enco ns id eredin li gh t o f cert ai n e xtran eo us fact s, i t t ak es on a m ul ti pl e m ean in g.” Jac owa y v. Br it ta in , 36 0 So . 2d30 6, 3 08 (Ala . 19 78 ). Here, the Est at e arg ue s t ha t t es ti m on y by the gr an dc hi ld ren sh ou ldbe adm it te d t o p ro ve th atJac qu el in e In gr am in te nd edto gi ve
The Estate ’s re liance on B arne tte v. Estate of Anderson, 966 So. 2d 915 (Ala . 2007) is 4 misplaced. In Ba

rnette, the court found te x tual support for the c reation of a life e state in will provisions that ex pressly

prohibited the sale of

the subject prope rty

throughout the devisee s’ “natur al lives” a

nd that disposed of the re mainder inter est in the proper ty by bequeathing it to the daughters’ he irs. I d. at 919. Her e, by contra st, the tex t of the will plainly anticipates that J err

y Ing rum will retain the powe r to sell Homeplac e duringhis lifetime, and contains no e x press ref ere nce to or

dispositi on of a r emainder interest in the prope rty

except to make him the benef iciary of the re siduary

clause
. 7th em

a rem ai nd er i nt eres t. Ho wev er, thi s t es ti m on y is in ad m is si bl e to va ry

th e writ te n t erm s o f th e wil l, wh ic h m ak e n o p ro vi si on fora rem ai nd er i nt eres t i n t he gr an dc hi ld ren . See Sch owa lt er v . Sch owa lt er, 1 28 So . 45 8, 4 59 (Ala . 19 30 ) (h ol di ng th atpa ro l ev id en ce i s “ in ad m is si bl e to sh ow i nt en t n otde du ci bl e fro m te rm s emplo y ed ” b y

th e wil l). Acco rd in gl y , we rejectth e Est at e’s co nt en ti on th at

5 th e wil l s ho ul d b e in te rp ret edin li gh t o f pa ro l ev id en ce. C. Sla nder of T itl e The Est at e fai ls to adva nc e an y arg um en t i n i ts in it ia l b rie f se ek in g re ve rs al of th e d is tri ctco urt’s ad ve rs e su m m ary jud gm en t o n i ts sl an de r of ti tl e cl ai m , bu t in si st s i ns te adth at , if we wer e to rev ers e th e d is tri ctco urt’s ru li ng on th e Est at e’s qu ie t t it le an d d ecl arat ory jud gm en t cl ai m s, we wo ul d a ls o b e req ui redto rev ers e
an d re m an d the di st ric t co urt’s ad ve rs e g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t o n s la nd er o f ti tl e. Becaus e we aff

irm th e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er o n t he ot he r two gro un ds , and we are g iv enno in de pe nd en t re as on to rev ers e it s ju dg m en t o n s la nd er o f ti tl e, th e Est at e h as waiv edan y

fur th er ch al le ng e to th e d is tri ctco urt’s ru li ng on th e sl an de r of ti tl e cl ai m . See Ad le r v. Du va l Cn ty. Sch . Bd., 1 12 F.3d14 75 , 14 81 (11 th Cir
. Insofar as the Estate argues that the district cour t was bound to follow the orde r of the 5 Probate Court in its construction of the will, bec ause the Probate Court proc eedingdenied the mortg ag ees of

the notice that the D ue Proce ss Clause entitled them to rec eive, the Probate Court’s judgme nt was void and the district c ourt was in no wa y bound by its reasoning . See Peralta, 485 U .S. at 84 (holding that adequate notice is a pr ere quisite to accor ding a judgme nt finality). 819 97 ) (“ The waiv er ru le requi res th atth e ap pe ll an t s ta te an d a dd res s ar gu m en t t o

th e is su es th e ap pe ll an t d es ire s t o h av e rev ie wedby thi s C ou rt i n t he ap pe ll an t’s in it ia l b rie f . . . .”). AFFIRMED
.

9