Court Opinion

ID: 9536479
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:00:35.135434+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:54:32.524331
License: Public Domain

WRIGHT, Presiding Judge
(concurring specially).
I concur that the appeal in this case must be dismissed, but not for the same reasons stated by the majority.
The decree rendered by the court below has all the language of a final judgment required by Title 27, Sec. 4. It is clearly intended as a final decree, even directing that notice be sent to the State Department of Pensions and Security. It may be assumed that such order was acted upon and that the Bureau of Vital Statistics may already have changed its records according to the directions of Section 4.
I am unable to see that such a final order may be “considered” as an interlocutory one by this court, merely because it should have been interlocutory.
I would hold the decree to be what it says it is, a final decree. However, such decree was entered contrary to statute (Sec. 4, Title 27) and thus is void. The authority of a court of probate in such cases is purely statutory. Exceeding such statutory authority results in a void decree. Evans v. Rosser, 280 Ala. 163, 190 So.2d 716. A void decree will not support an appeal. Thornton v. First Nat. Bank of Birmingham, 291 Ala. 233, 279 So.2d 496.
To hold the existing decree valid as interlocutory fails to remove its efficacy on the record. Its standing and authority should be removed as a matter of record.