Summary
The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed the circuit court's ruling that the state's antilapse statute does not apply to a decedent's will. The court determined that the will's explicit survivorship language and alternative devise provision clearly manifested the testator's intent to restrict inheritance to named beneficiaries who survive him, thereby overriding the default statutory rule. As a result, the sole surviving named beneficiary was entitled to receive the entire residuary estate.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Alabama's antilapse statute applies to a will that contains survivorship language and an alternative devise provision.
- Whether the circuit court's declaratory judgment is a final judgment appealable under § 12‑22‑20, Ala. Code 1975 without a Rule 54(b) certification.
Holdings
- The antilapse statute does not apply because the will contains explicit survivorship language and an alternative devise provision, demonstrating the testator's intent to defeat the statute.
- The declaratory judgment is a final judgment appealable under § 12‑22‑20, Ala. Code 1975; a Rule 54(b) certification is unnecessary.
Key quotations
“We conclude that we have appellate jurisdiction over the circuit‑court judgment entered in this case because the judgment resolves all the claims raised by Mayers in her petition, making the judgment final and appealable.” (5 SC-2025-0297)
“The judgment of the circuit court, finding that the antilapse statute does not apply in this case and that Mayers, therefore, is the sole beneficiary under the terms of the testator's will, is affirmed.” (8 SC-2025-0297)
Factual background
Samuel D. Johnson executed a will in October 1990 that left his estate to his father, and if the father predeceased him, equally to his siblings Roger D. Johnson, Denny R. Johnson, Judith A. Mayers, and Janice M. Barnes, with a fallback provision to his nearest living heirs. The testator died in July 2022; only Mayers survived. The probate court admitted the will and appointed Mayers as administratrix. The circuit court was later asked to construe the will and held that the antilapse statute did not apply, making Mayers the sole beneficiary.
Procedural history
The testator executed a will in 1990 naming his father and, if the father predeceased him, his siblings as residuary devisees. The testator died in July 2022; only Mayers survived. The probate court admitted the will and issued letters of administration to Mayers. The administration was removed to the circuit court, which entered a judgment construing the will and holding the antilapse statute inapplicable. The nephews appealed.