Title: Kimberly R. Kiker, Administratrix of the Estate of Christopher A. Kiker, deceased v. Probate Court of Mobile County
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 1090414
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: December 10, 2010

REL: 12/10/2010
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, 2010-2011
_________________________
1090414
_________________________
Kimberly R. Kiker, administratrix of the estate of
Christopher A. Kiker, deceased
v.
Probate Court of Mobile County
Appeal from Mobile Probate Court
(No. 06-2415)
On Return to Remand
SMITH, Justice.
Kimberly R. Kiker, administratrix of the estate of
Christopher A. Kiker, deceased, appealed from an order of the
Mobile Probate Court insofar as the order awarded attorney
1090414
McGlothren represented Kiker in a wrongful-death action
1
against Christopher's physician; the parties settled the
wrongful-death action for $150,000.  Robson, who had
represented Kiker in probating Christopher's estate, had
referred Kiker's wrongful-death action to McGlothren. 
2
fees and expenses in the amount of $73,678.80 to Michael S.
McGlothren, P.C. ("McGlothren"), and attorney fees in the
amount of $19,365.80 to the Robson Law Firm ("Robson").   On
1
September 17, 2010, we remanded the case with directions,
stating:
"In this case, the probate court's December 22,
2009, order awarding attorney fees and expenses in
the amount of $73,678.80 to Michael S. McGlothren,
P.C., and attorney fees in the amount of $19,365.80
to the Robson Law Firm provides no indication as to
whether the probate court considered the criteria
set forth for determining the reasonableness of an
attorney fee as detailed in Pharmacia [Corp. v.
McGowan], 915 So. 2d [549,] 552-53 [(Ala. 2004)]
(quoting Van Schaack v. AmSouth Bank, N.A., 530 So.
2d 740, 749 (Ala. 1988)). Additionally, the probate
court's order neither indicates how the probate
court calculated the attorney fees nor provides a
basis 
for 
ascertaining 
the 
exact 
amount 
of
McGlothren's award specifically attributable to
attorney fees. Although the probate court stated in
its original order of November 24, 2009, that its
decision was based on the 'evidence and argument
presented,' the probate court provides no detailed
application of the facts regarding the attorney fees
to the factors detailed in Pharmacia.
"The probate court may, in its discretion,
reduce an agreed-upon attorney fee if it concludes
that the attorney fee is unreasonable. See Ex parte
Peck, 572 So. 2d 427, 429 (Ala. 1990). However,
1090414
3
without a sufficient explanation by the probate
court regarding its consideration of the 12 factors
outlined in Pharmacia and how it calculated the
attorney fees, we cannot ascertain whether the
probate court exceeded its discretion in awarding
those fees. 
"....
"Based on the foregoing, we remand this cause to
the probate court for the entry of an order
explaining its decision and articulating its reasons
for that decision. Due return shall be made to this
Court within 42 days of the date of this opinion."
Kiker v. Probate Court of Mobile County, [Ms. 1090414,
September 17, 2010] ___ So. 3d ____ (Ala. 2010) (footnote
omitted; emphasis added).
The probate court has made timely return of the case;
however, on remand the probate court exceeded the scope of
remand.  Specifically, the probate court, on remand, was only
to explain its award of attorney fees and expenses.  See
Kiker, supra.  In addition to explaining its award of attorney
fees and expenses, however, the probate court modified its
prior order both by reducing Robson's attorney-fee award from
$19,365.80 to $18,793.53 and by increasing McGlothren's total
award of attorney fees and expenses from $73,678.80 to
$74,250.35.  The probate court was not free to modify its
prior order on remand, and, in so doing, the probate court
1090414
4
exceeded its limited jurisdiction on remand.  This Court did
not reverse the probate court's prior order on original
submission; this Court remanded the case for the probate court
to explain how it reached the conclusions stated in its order.
See Ex parte Edwards, 727 So. 2d 792, 794 (Ala. 1998) ("'It is
well settled that, after remand, the trial court should comply
strictly with the mandate of the appellate court by entering
and 
implementing 
the 
appropriate 
judgment.'" 
(quoting 
Auerbach
v. Parker, 558 So. 2d 900, 902 (Ala. 1989))); Ex parte Alabama
Power Co., 431 So. 2d 151, 155 (Ala. 1983) ("'It is the duty
of the trial court, on remand, to comply strictly with the
mandate of the appellate court according to its true intent
and meaning, as determined by the directions given by the
reviewing court. No judgment other than that directed or
permitted by the reviewing court may be entered ...." (quoting
5 Am. Jur. 2d Appeal and Error § 991 (1962))); Walker v.
Humana Med. Corp., 423 So. 2d 891, 892 (Ala. Civ. App. 1982)
("After an appellate court, in appropriate cases, has directed
entry of a judgment, the only function of the trial court is
to enter and implement the appropriate judgment." (citing,
1090414
5
among other authorities, Hames v. Irwin, 256 Ala. 319, 54 So.
2d 293 (1951))).
We have no alternative but to remand this case for a
second time, directing the probate court to vacate its order
on first remand and to comply with this Court's mandate in
Kiker v. Probate Court of Mobile County, supra.  Specifically,
we direct the probate court to explain its decision awarding
attorney fees and expenses in the amount of $73,678.80 to
McGlothren and attorney fees in the amount of $19,365.80 to
Robson and to articulate its reasons for that decision.  Due
return shall be made to this Court within 42 days of the date
of this opinion.
REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.
Cobb, C.J., and Woodall, Parker, and Shaw, JJ., concur.