Valda Carleton v. William Carleton, Jr.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
REL: 08/19/2011 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS SPECIAL TERM, 2011 2100479 Valda Carleton v. William Carleton, J r . Appeal from S t . C l a i r C i r c u i t Court (CV-09-900148) THOMAS, Judge. Valda St. the Clair Carleton Circuit estate ("Valda") appeals from a judgment o f t h e Court removing h e r as t h ea d m i n i s t r a t r i x o f of William Carleton, S r . ("the e s t a t e " ) , a n d 2100479 appointing William administrator William M a r c h 23, Clair the 2009. On Sr. Court c i r c u i t court for 25, to to c i r c u i t court. the that had been issued own, that that benefit, Valda and 1 Section to had had the as intestate Jr. filed on Valda and to claimed of the funds Valda had wasted, Valda 4 3 - 2 - 2 9 0 , A l a . Code 1975, the requested Jr. property for her as provides, William in and Jr.'s pertinent "An administrator may be removed, and his l e t t e r s r e v o k e d f o r h i s r e m o v a l f r o m t h e s t a t e ; and a n a d m i n i s t r a t o r o r e x e c u t o r may b e r e m o v e d a n d h i s l e t t e r s r e v o k e d f o r any o f the f o l l o w i n g c a u s e s : The wasting, 2 embezzlement or any her personal embezzled, answered as William Jr. part: "(3) in estate William In his petition, estate-owned of St. administration appoint estate 1 of William Jr. also letters estate. i n the a petition administration the estate. died administration used that maladministered of revoke of the Valda Sr."), 2009, W i l l i a m c i r c u i t court alleged letters In his petition, administrator Jr."), Valda f i l e d a petition remove t h e that the ("William ("William Thereafter, August Jr. estate. Carleton, Probate estate. the of Carleton, 2100479 petition, court with admitting was proper regard On June 22, court, Valda's letters that 2010, a l l William William Jr. filed requesting that of the estate. probate Jr.'sallegations a motion the c i r c u i t i n the court revoke and a p p o i n t W i l l i a m J r . as I n h i s motion, court of the estate circuit of the estate. of administration the administratrix Sr.'s and denying again administrator alleged removal of the a c t i o n t o the to her administration circuit the that had based William J r . appointed on h e r s t a t u s Valda as William widow and t h a t , a f t e r h e r appointment, t h e c i r c u i t had determined the time no l o n g e r t h a t V a l d a was of h i s death. had p r i o r i t y administrator not the wife Therefore, I n response m o t i o n , V a l d a moved t h e c i r c u i t The petition Sr. at J r . argued, Valda court to William J r . ' s to appoint a third-party f o r the estate. circuit court and motion other the of William court o v e r W i l l i a m J r . f o r a p p o i n t m e n t as t h e of the estate. administrator William as held a on D e c e m b e r maladministration hearing 10, on William Jr.'s 2 0 1 0 , a n d , on the of the estate. " ( 4 ) The u s i n g o f a n y o f t h e f u n d s o f e s t a t e f o r h i s own b e n e f i t . " 3 same 2100479 date, i t entered administration a based J r . ' s ] m o t i o n " and of the judgment "upon circuit grounds stated a p p o i n t i n g W i l l i a m J r . as t h e filed postjudgment erred the wife d e a t h ; t h a t she had not t h e e s t a t e ; and t h a t she property own. Valda court a had was not as h e r had erred for the requested court and court, On letters in of [William administrator denied on asserting i t s earlier William Sr. had not at the time that of a t t e m p t e d t o c l a i m any Jr. letters the his maladministered a l s o argued t h a t the William that determination wasted, embezzled, or of estate circuit court administration r e q u i r i n g W i l l i a m J r . to post Our to § postjudgment motion bond. court t r a n s f e r r e d the 12-2-7(6), A l a . first argues that Alabama appeal Code the circuit to 1975. her postjudgment motion without a court holding motion. "Rule 59(g), A l a . R. C i v . P., provides p o s t - j u d g m e n t m o t i o n s ' s h a l l n o t be r u l e d upon 4 The without s u b s e q u e n t l y appealed to the supreme Valda that Valda's Valda e r r e d when i t d e n i e d a hearing motion, o r a l a r g u m e n t on h e r p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n . pursuant appeal, of i n not holding a hearing. Supreme C o u r t . in Valda in granting estate circuit this the Valda's estate. Valda Valda revoking that until 2100479 the p a r t i e s have had an o p p o r t u n i t y t o be heard thereon.' We have said that i f a hearing is r e q u e s t e d , i t m u s t be g r a n t e d . S t a a r u p v. Staarup, 537 So. 2 d 56 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1988). On appeal, h o w e v e r , i f an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t d e t e r m i n e s t h a t t h e r e i s no p r o b a b l e m e r i t t o t h e m o t i o n , i t may affirm b a s e d on t h e h a r m l e s s e r r o r r u l e . W a l l s v . B a n k o f P r a t t v i l l e , 554 So. 2 d 381 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) . " Hill v. Hill, question merit on to 681 appeal the So. 2d 617, 619 ( A l a . C i v . App. i s , t h e r e f o r e , whether arguments presented in 1996). t h e r e was Valda's The probable postjudgment motion. Valda presented challenging Section priority the to administration in r e v o c a t i o n of her 43-2-42, as arguments Ala. whom f o r an Code a postjudgment letters 1975, court estate. her of a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . provides must motion the grant That s e c t i o n order letters provides: " ( a ) A d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f an i n t e s t a t e ' s e s t a t e m u s t be g r a n t e d t o one o f t h e p e r s o n s h e r e i n n a m e d i f t h e p e r s o n i s w i l l i n g t o a c c e p t and s a t i s f a c t o r y to serve i n the f o l l o w i n g o r d e r : "(1) in The husband or widow. " ( 2 ) The n e x t o f k i n e n t i t l e d t o the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the e s t a t e . "(3) The largest estate residing i n this creditor state. "(4) Any o t h e r p e r s o n p r o b a t e may appoint." 5 as the share of the judge of of of 2100479 § 43-2-42. At the the time Valda probate court, Sr. Thus, Valda administrator filed s h e was for letters t h o u g h t t o be t h e w i d o w o f had first the of of administration i n p r i o r i t y t o be estate, and, William appointed accordingly, as the probate court a p p o i n t e d h e r as t h e a d m i n s t r a t r i x o f t h e e s t a t e . Valda had been the appointed c i r c u i t court as t h e a d m i n s t r a t r i x determined William Sr.'s previous i n an action of the brought wives, Mary G a i l C a r l e t o n , i n the divorce Mary and W i l l i a m S r . ; t h e r e f o r e , the c i r c u i t court Mary was the legal wife death, their William S r . , see Boudreau v. C i v . App. Sr.'s wife circuit see Valda had Slaton, v. judgment i n t h a t Carleton (No. ( A l a . C i v . App. Valda's petition i s not William Sr. at abated 9 So. This f o r the w r i t of one time the court of final between determined, 3d 4 9 5 , March 2011)(table), 6 the action, without 2090945, S r . ' s widow. action upon estate, by of h i s death of 500 ( A l a . V a l d a had not been at the time of h i s death. court's S o . 3 d ___ action 2008), and, a c c o r d i n g l y , Carleton denied divorce of William After that a judgment had never been e n t e r e d the William affirmed an the opinion, 11, 2011), and o u r supreme certiorari. court Thus, 2100479 Because Valda i s not actually William Sr.'s does n o t have p r i o r i t y o v e r W i l l i a m J r . , o r any of William Sr., under § 43-2-42. The widow, other circuit relative court d i s c r e t i o n i n m a t t e r s o f p r i o r i t y u n d e r § 4 3 - 2 - 4 2 . See G o r d o n , 706 to So. 2d 707, appointment given administrator, preference v. 265 Therefore, to, by Ala. the i s not 236, circuit motion because they Valda Brown v. was (1920)("Where as So. could, and widow. Ala. 157, Ogle, 158, on there of the e s t a t e a p p l i c a t i o n of was circuit no probable court had any having as such (1956))). required on the having See also So. 439, 440 85 person merit erred in in 7 be improperly r e c a l l e d by jurisdiction i n question, revoking of the the e i t h e r ex mero motu in interest."). Valda's belief supra. a d m i n i s t r a t i o n have been or or or 274 granted court administration right in fact was s u c h l e t t e r s may them, one 262, or i m p r o v i d e n t l y granted, granting executor v. o f a d m i n i s t r a t i o n on W i l l i a m J r . ' s Sr.'s of as the 2d been i m p r o p e r l y 204 letters 90 court had long Ogle d i s q u a l i f i e d . . . . ' " ( q u o t i n g Smith 248, William Brown, so lacks ( " ' P r i o r i t y of s t a t u t e , whether revoke Valda's l e t t e r s that ( A l a . 1997) is controlling statutory Rice, 710-11 she Therefore, argument her that the letters of 2100479 administration. Valda's court to Because 2 argument hold on a harmless error. 3 this hearing there was issue, the on R u l e 45, Valda's A l a . R. no probable failure of merit the postjudgment in circuit motion was So. at App. P.; Hill, 681 appeal that the c i r c u i t court 2d 619. V a l d a n e x t a r g u e s on in appointing William because, Valda b a s e d on the J r . as says, William fact that of Randolph Carleton, asserts has he the administrator J r . has i s also W i l l i a m Sr.'s conflicting claims of the a of conflict executor of the of estate interest the father, which estate ownership erred of property estate Valda with B e c a u s e we determine t h a t the c i r c u i t court properly r e v o k e d V a l d a ' s l e t t e r s o f a d m i n i s t r a t i o n b a s e d on t h e fact t h a t she was not the widow o f W i l l i a m S r . , we need not c o n s i d e r whether the c i r c u i t c o u r t c o u l d have r e v o k e d V a l d a ' s l e t t e r s o f a d m i n i s t r a t i o n b a s e d on a d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t V a l d a had u s e d e s t a t e funds f o r her p e r s o n a l b e n e f i t or t h a t Valda had w a s t e d , e m b e z z l e d , or m a l a d m i n i s t e r e d the e s t a t e . 2 V a l d a a l s o argued i n her postjudgment motion t h a t the c i r c u i t c o u r t had e r r e d by not r e q u i r i n g W i l l i a m J r . t o p o s t a s u r e t y bond. On a p p e a l , V a l d a r e a s s e r t s t h i s i s s u e i n h e r statement of the i s s u e s ; h o w e v e r , she provides no actual a r g u m e n t as t o t h i s i s s u e . B e c a u s e V a l d a has n o t provided t h i s c o u r t w i t h a n y a r g u m e n t on t h i s i s s u e , s h e h a s w a i v e d t h e i s s u e on a p p e a l . See P a r d u e v . P o t t e r , 632 So. 2 d 4 7 0 , 473 (Ala. 1994)("Issues not argued i n the a p p e l l a n t ' s b r i e f are waived."). 3 8 2100479 the estate. However, t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t has a person i s not of an estate estate. See So. 168, had an d i s q u a l i f i e d f r o m s e r v i n g as t h e because of Willoughby 169 a conflict v. Willoughby, (1919)(holding adverse interest with that, i n the the 203 "[e]ven estate, held administrator interests Ala. the 139, 138, of 82 though [the or that claimed to widow] have a r i g h t s u p e r i o r or a n t a g o n i s t i c to decedent's next of k i n , such claims d i d not or subordinate disqualify her superior that of p e t i t i o n e r s , of decedent"). court's her f r o m a c t i n g as a d m i n i s t r a t r i x , claim to administer the b r o t h e r s , Therefore, we the heirs, d i s c e r n no the and estate next of e r r o r i n the to kin circuit a p p o i n t m e n t o f W i l l i a m J r . as t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r o f the estate. Because the Valda's circuit postjudgment because Valda has court's motion not amounted shown t h a t appointing W i l l i a m J r . as affirm judgment of the failure the the the to to hold harmless circuit administrator circuit a hearing error, court of the on and erred in estate, we court. AFFIRMED. Thompson, P.J., and Pittman, concur. 9 Bryan, and Moore, JJ.,
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
