In a case arising from Jefferson County, the Alabama Supreme Court recently presided over an appeal clarifying the boundaries of probate jurisdiction. This case, Ex parte Marion Kristen McLeroy, explores the timeliness and requirements to transfer a case out of probate court.
Nella Ruth Braswell died in 2014. Braswell was an animal lover, and at the time of her death, she left behind nineteen pets. Her estate also included more than $2,000,000 in assets. Her will provided that her estate would be used to create an “Animal Trust” to support the care for her beloved companions, leaving any remainder to The Humane Society of the United States. Braswell’s estate included multiple properties, and she specifically directed that her personal residence would be placed in the Animal Trust. She also authorized the sale of additional properties to fund the trust. Upon Braswell’s death, the Jefferson Probate court accepted her will, appointing Marion Kristen McLeroy as the personal representative of Braswell’s estate.
Conflict arose when the Humane Society grew dissatisfied with McLeroy as the representative of Braswell’s estate. Initially, the parties had worked together to place the animals in a local animal hospital, and they discussed terminating the Animal Trust and transferring the assets to the Human Society, but the discussions were fruitless. McLeroy failed to sell any of the properties in the estate, and the Human Society did not receive anything from the estate assets. Counsel for the Humane Society requested the deeds for Braswell’s properties, and a formal accounting of her estate, including the Animal trust. Some, but not all, of the information was provided, causing the Humane Society to pursue McLeroy’s removal. With only one of the animals still alive, McLeroy petitioned for a final settlement of the estate, but before the hearing, the Humane Society filed a petition to move the case from probate court to the Jefferson Circuit Court. McLeroy objected to the transfer, but the case had already been moved, and the circuit court refused to relinquish the case. Seeking relief, McLeroy petitioned for a writ of mandamus, a special type of order directing a government official to fulfill their duties, attempting to return the issue to the probate court.
McLeroy challenged the transfer to the circuit court on several grounds. First, she argued that, because the probate court had initiated final settlement proceedings, their jurisdiction was exclusive, making it too late for the Humane Society to transfer the case. The final settlement in probate court, she asserted, was aimed at resolving any issues between McLeroy and the Humane Society. McLeroy believed that any problems between the parties could be resolved by the probate court, through the final settlement proceedings that had been scheduled.
The Court examined both settled case law and Alabama statute to resolve the dispute. Referring to section §12-11-41 of the Alabama code, which governs the removal of administration of estates from probate court, the Court found that removal was permissible. However, the statute only provides this remedy before final settlement proceedings begin. Century-old case law from this jurisdiction further solidified their conclusion, clarifying that the beginning of final settlement proceedings barred the circuit court from assuming jurisdiction over the case. Accordingly, the Humane Society’s petition for removal came too late, as McLeroy had already petitioned for final settlement. The validity of the Humane Society’s issues did not affect the decision, as the probate court retaining the authority to resolve any such issues.
Ex parte Marion Kristen McLeroy illustrates several key legal principles. Primarily, the case highlights the jurisdiction, power, and authority of probate courts. The Alabama Supreme Court did not need to address the merits of the Humane Society’s concerns with McLeroy, because the probate court was adequately equipped to handle these concerns. Further, the ruling clarifies important timeliness requirements, with the final settlement proceedings precluding any attempts to remove the case to the circuit court. Finally, the case depicts a scenario in which the issuance of a writ of mandamus was proper, casting light on the proper circumstances for the courts to intervene in government actions.
If you have an Estate to Probate, Call Ingram Law LLC at 205-335-2640 of 205-506-5590. Get Relief * Get Results