Court Opinion

ID: 9937831
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 19:02:03.269526+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:28.965016
License: Public Domain

I concur in the view expressed by the Chief Justice.
A further comment is in order because of my concurrence inMcCaleb v. Brown, 344 So.2d 485 (Ala. 1977) and Zimmerman v.First National Bank of Birmingham, 348 So.2d 1359 (Ala. 1977). In each of these cases the document was drafted after the 1931 amendment to the adoption statute. Scriveners after that date were reasonably put on notice that if adopted children were intended to be excluded then express language to that effect should be employed. On the other hand, scriveners prior to that date should be able to comfortably rely on settled case law.
The fundamental purpose of the law of wills is to provide a means for people to direct the disposition of their property after death. To change the rules of construction after a will is drafted will unnecessarily thwart the intended property disposition.
I, therefore, respectfully dissent.