Opinion ID: 1680603
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Final Settlement of Decedent's Estate

Text: Boyd also contends that § 12-22-21(5) authorizes this appeal as one  respecting a matter of the final settlement of the [decedent's] estate. Boyd's brief, at 2 (emphasis added). More specifically, she argues: The disgorgement was ordered by the decree for purposes of a final settlement of the estate. [The heirs] have continually requested the disgorgement so that a final settlement could be [e]ffected. Certainly, this must be construed as respecting a matter of the final settlement of the estate.  Boyd's brief, at 19 (emphasis added). This argument is based on a misreading of § 12-22-21(5). Section 12-22-21(5) does not authorize an appeal from any judgment or order respecting a matter of a final settlement, as Boyd reads it. Not every order of a probate court involving the funds in a decedent's estate is appealable as from a final settlement. On the contrary, a partial settlement is appealable, pursuant to Ala.Code 1975, § 12-22-4, but such an appeal must be brought in this Court. Instead, § 12-22-21(5) authorizes an appeal to the circuit court only [ a]fter a final settlement. (Emphasis added.) Thus, the triggering event is the final settlement itself, not, as Boyd argues, some order anticipating, or facilitating, an eventual final settlement. Moreover, in the context of a decedent's estate, ` [f]inal settlement' has a distinct meaning. Ex parte Clayton, 514 So.2d 1013, 1016 (Ala.1987) (emphasis added). In Clayton, this Court explained: Section 43-2-502, Code of Alabama (1975), states what actions constitute a final settlement: `In making settlements of an administration, the executor or administrator must proceed as follows: `He must make out an account between himself and the estate he represents, . . . which account, verified by his oath, must be filed with the judge of probate of the court having jurisdiction. `With such account he must also file the vouchers and written evidence in his possession, . . . file a statement, on oath, of the names of the heirs and legatees of such estate. . . . `He must state the sum of funds of the estate which he has used for his own benefit. . . .' Furthermore, this Court has previously held that `[j]urisdiction for final settlement in the probate court begins upon filing accounts and vouchers with statement of the heirs invoking the court's jurisdiction for such settlement and an order entered setting day, directing notice, etc.' [ Ex parte McLendon, 212 Ala. 403, 405, 102 So. 696, 698 (1924) ], citing §§ 5901, 5904, Code of Alabama (1923), now §§ 43-2-501 and 43-2-502, Code of Alabama (1975). Ex parte Clayton, 514 So.2d at 1016-17. See also McCormick v. Langford, 516 So.2d 643, 646 (Ala.1987) (the probate court could not enter a final settlement order before the personal representative filed documents required by § 43-2-502 supporting his statement of account). Boyd does not allege, and the record does not disclose, that any of these procedures for invoking the probate court's jurisdiction for a final settlement has been followed in this case. Indeed, she acknowledges that the disgorgement was ordered as a condition precedent to a final settlement. Boyd's brief, at 19. [A] settlement, which does not close the business of the estate in the hands of the administrator, is not a final settlement of the estate. Stevens v. Tucker, 87 Ind. 109, 115 (1882). The term final settlement signifies that nothing remain[s] to be done by an administrator or by the court in the settlement of [the] estate. Id. That situation was not obtained by the order in this case. The order makes no distributions. Indeed, the order involves only one asset the credit union funds. It does not purport to settle all liabilities or to discharge the administratrix. See Ala.Code 1975, §§ 43-2-627 to -628. In short, the circuit court correctly construed the order as not constitut[ing] a final settlement of the estate.