Summary
The Alabama Supreme Court considered whether a will contest was properly dismissed because the contestant failed to join all interested beneficiaries within six months after probate. Relying on Hons v. A. Bertolla & Sons, the court held that the six-month period governs filing a proper contest, but does not require all necessary parties to be named within that period. The court reversed the dismissal and remanded for joinder and further proceedings.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a will contest filed within six months after probate is timely and properly instituted when the complaint does not initially name every interested beneficiary required to be joined under Alabama Code sections 43-8-199 and 43-8-200.
- Whether the six-month period in section 43-8-199 bars joinder of necessary or indispensable parties after that period expires.
- Whether the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure conflict with the statutory will-contest provisions as interpreted in Hons v. A. Bertolla & Sons.
- Whether Hons should be overruled.
Holdings
- Ussery's complaint satisfied the requirements of section 43-8-199 because it was filed in the proper circuit court within six months after probate, alleged Ussery's interest in the will, contested the codicil's validity, stated that the will had been admitted to probate, and named an adverse party.
- The six-month period prescribed by section 43-8-199 does not preclude the later joinder of necessary parties under section 43-8-200 after the six-month period has expired.
- Hons remains controlling and is not overruled because it is consistent with Simpson and Evans, which involved contests that were not properly filed within the six-month statutory period.
Key quotations
“All that is required for absent beneficiaries to be joined is that a proper complaint be filed pursuant to § 43-8-199.” (549)
“Therefore, based upon Hons, we hold that the six-month period prescribed in § 43-8-199 does not preclude the joinder of necessary parties under § 43-8-200 beyond that six-month period.” (549)
Factual background
Donald R. Terry executed a will on October 21, 2010, naming Ussery and several Terry family members as beneficiaries. A fourth codicil allegedly reduced Ussery's residuary share from one-third to ten percent and increased the shares of two other beneficiaries to forty-five percent each. After the will and codicil were admitted to probate, Ussery filed a contest alleging that Donald lacked capacity and was unable to communicate when the codicil was executed and that Alan Terry exerted undue influence. Ussery initially named Alan only as executor and sought to add other beneficiaries after the six-month probate period had begun to run.
Procedural history
The Montgomery Probate Court admitted Donald R. Terry's will and fourth codicil to probate on September 8, 2014. Ussery filed a codicil contest in the Montgomery Circuit Court on March 6, 2015, within six months of probate. The circuit court granted Alan Terry's motion to dismiss without stating its reasoning and denied Ussery's post-judgment motion. The Alabama Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
Remand instructions
The case was remanded for proceedings consistent with the opinion, including determination of whether the complaint satisfied section 43-8-199 and, if so, joinder of absent interested parties under section 43-8-200 and the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure.