Title: Kimberly Bond v. Adam Pylant et al.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 1060568
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: August 15, 2008

REL:08/15/2008
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
SPECIAL TERM, 2008
____________________
1060568
____________________
Kimberly Bond
v.
Adam Pylant et al.
Appeal from Lee Circuit Court 
(CV-06-399)
BOLIN, Justice.
Kimberly Bond appeals from the circuit court's order
dismissing 
her 
complaint 
for 
lack 
of 
subject-matter
jurisdiction.  We affirm.
1060568
In a proceeding to probate an alleged lost or destroyed
1
will, the burden is on the proponent to establish: (1) the
existence of a will; (2) the loss or destruction of the will;
(3) the nonrevocation of the will by the testator; and (4) the
contents of the will in substance and effect.  Barksdale v.
Pendergrass, 294 Ala. 526, 529, 319 So. 2d 267, 269 (1975). 
2
Facts and Procedural History
Kenneth D. Pylant II died on September 5, 2005.   When he
died, Kenneth was married to Kimberly Bond; he had four
children from a previous marriage, two of whom were minors.
Subsequently, James Sprayberry, as executor of Kenneth's
estate, filed a petition in the Lee County Probate Court
seeking to admit to probate a copy of Kenneth's will, which
Sprayberry alleged had been lost or destroyed.   Apparently,
1
Sprayberry, who is an attorney, had a copy of an unexecuted
will he had prepared on Kenneth's behalf, which he asserted
was a copy of the will Kenneth executed.  We assume that the
heirs at law were notified of the petition as required by §
43-8-164 through -166, Ala. Code 1975.  On November 29, 2005,
the probate court held a hearing and that same day entered an
order admitting the copy of the lost will to probate. 
On April 26, 2006, Bond filed in the probate court a
"Complaint contesting the Will."   That same day, Bond also
filed in the probate court a motion to transfer the will
1060568
We note that Bond did not file a petition to remove the
2
administration of the estate from the probate court to the
circuit court pursuant to § 12-11-41, Ala. Code 1975, which
petition could have been filed in the circuit court at any
time before final settlement, after the will was admitted to
probate. 
3
contest to the circuit court pursuant to § 43-8-198, Ala. Code
1975.  On May 2, 2006, the probate court purported to transfer
the will contest to the circuit court by having someone take
the file to the circuit court clerk's office.   A member of
the probate court's staff informed Bond's counsel that there
was no order of transfer.  On May 30, 2006, the probate court
entered an order again purporting to transfer the will contest
to the circuit court.  
2
On June 9, 2006, Bond filed a complaint in the circuit
court contesting the will.  On June 16, 2006, Sprayberry, as
executor, along with Kenneth's two adult children, filed an
answer and moved to dismiss the complaint filed in the circuit
court on the ground that the circuit court lacked subject-
matter jurisdiction over the matter.  On November 30, 2006,
the circuit court entered an order dismissing Bond's complaint
for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because Bond failed to
file her will contest in the circuit court within six months
1060568
The probate courts of Mobile, Jefferson, and Shelby
3
Counties have concurrent jurisdiction with the circuit court
to try will contests after a will has been admitted to probate
based on local acts.  See Act No. 974, Ala. Acts 1961, Act No.
4
after the will was admitted to probate as required by § 43-8-
199, Ala. Code 1975.  Bond timely appealed.
Standard of Review
In Newman v. Savas, 878 So. 2d 1147 (Ala. 2003), this
Court set out the standard of review of a ruling on a motion
to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction:
"A ruling on a motion to dismiss is reviewed
without a presumption of correctness.  Nance v.
Matthews, 622 So. 2d 297, 299 (Ala. 1993).  This
Court must accept the allegations of the complaint
as true. Creola Land Dev., Inc. v. Bentbrooke
Housing, L.L.C., 828 So. 2d 285, 288 (Ala. 2002).
Furthermore, in reviewing a ruling on a motion to
dismiss we will not consider whether the pleader
will ultimately prevail but whether the pleader may
possibly prevail.  Nance, 622 So. 2d at 299."
878 So. 2d at 1148-49.
Discussion
"In Alabama, a will may be contested in two
ways: (1) under § 43-8-190, Ala. Code 1975, before
probate, the contest may be instituted in the
probate court or (2) under § 43-8-199, Ala. Code
1975, after probate and within six months thereof,
a contest may be instituted by filing a complaint in
the circuit court of the county in which the will
was probated."
Stevens v. Gary, 565 So. 2d 73, 74 (Ala. 1990).3
1060568
1144, Ala. Acts 1971, and Act No. 2003-123, Ala. Acts 2003,
respectively; see also Coleman v. Richardson, 421 So. 2d 113
(Ala. 1982)(addressing the concurrent jurisdiction of the
Mobile Circuit Court and the Mobile County Probate Court in
hearing a will contest after a will has been admitted to
probate).
5
In the present case, Bond did not contest the will before
it was admitted to probate. Section 43-8-198, Ala. Code 1975,
provides for the transfer of a will contest from the probate
court to the circuit court, but this section must be read in
conjunction with § 43-8-190, Ala. Code 1975. See Bardin v.
Jones, 371 So. 2d 23 (Ala. 1979)(addressing the transfer of a
will contest to the circuit court).  Section 43-8-190 pertains
only to a will contest filed in the probate court "before the
probate thereof." (Emphasis added.)  Other than as noted in
note 3, supra, the only provision for contesting a will after
its admission to probate, as is the case here, is § 43-8-199,
Ala. Code 1975, which states: 
"Any person interested in any will who has not
contested the same under the provisions of this
article may, at any time within the six months after
the admission of such will to probate in this state,
contest the validity of the same by filing a
complaint in the circuit court in the county in
which such will was probated."
(Emphasis added.)   
1060568
6
Bond filed a will contest in the probate court, after the
will had been admitted for probate, and moved the probate
court to transfer the will contest to the circuit court. Under
§ 43-8-190, Bond was precluded from filing the contest in the
probate court after the will had been admitted to probate, and
therefore there was no proper contest to transfer to the
circuit court pursuant to § 43-8-198.  Although the probate
court physically transferred the file and subsequently entered
an order transferring the will contest to the circuit court,
these actions are not sufficient to invoke the circuit court's
jurisdiction 
under 
§ 
43-8-199. 
 
"A 
circuit 
court's
jurisdiction over a will contest is statutory and limited."
Forrester v. Putnam, 409 So. 2d 773, 775 (Ala. 1981).
In Kelley v. English, 439 So. 2d 26 (Ala. 1983), the
decedent's children petitioned for the probate of his
purported will, which named them as executors.  The probate
court admitted the will to probate.  Subsequently, the
decedent's widow filed a will contest in the probate court,
along with a demand that the contest be transferred to circuit
court.  The probate court entered a order transferring the
contest to the circuit court.  The children filed a motion to
1060568
7
dismiss the will contest on the ground that § 43-1-70 (now §
43-8-190) authorized a contest before the probate of the will
and § 43-1-79 (now § 43-8-199) authorized a will contest by
filing a complaint in the circuit court within six months
after the admission of the will to probate, and that the
decedent's widow had taken neither action.  The circuit court
granted the motion to dismiss.  Subsequently, the widow filed
an amendment to the complaint contesting the will in the
circuit court.  The children filed a motion to strike the
amendment because there was no valid complaint to which the
amendment could attach.  The circuit court granted the motion;
the widow appealed.  This Court held that the widow did not
properly file a contest in the circuit court so as to invoke
that court's jurisdiction under what is now § 43-8-199.
In order to timely contest the will after it was admitted
for probate, Bond had to file a will contest in the circuit
court within six months of the admission of the will to
probate.  Bond's will contest filed in the probate court was
a nullity because it was filed after the will was admitted to
probate, and the probate court's order purporting to transfer
1060568
8
the file to the circuit court could not and did not confer
jurisdiction on the circuit court.
Conclusion
The judgment of the circuit court dismissing Bond's will
contest for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
Cobb, C.J., and Lyons, Stuart, and Murdock, JJ., concur.