Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 08-23-2024
Case Style:
John Skidmore v. Billy Wayne Skidmore, Jr.
Case Number: CV-23-900277
Judge: Not Available
Court: Circuit Court, Marshall County, Alabama
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Defendant's Attorney:
Description:
Guntersville, Alabama probate lawyers represented the parties in a dispute over the ownership of real property.
Billy Skidmore ("Billy") died intestate in July 2015. He was survived by his two sons: the appellant, John, and the appellee, Billy Wayne Skidmore, Jr. ("Billy Jr.").
On October 19, 2015, the probate court awarded John letters of administration over his father's estate. In December 2015, John's half brother, Billy Jr., filed a claim in the probate court, asserting his entitlement to an equal share of his father's estate.
In November 2017, John filed an initial inventory of the estate's assets. That initial inventory generally listed "Real Property" as an asset of the estate and estimated the value of that real property to be $524,240. Several years later, in January 2021, Billy Jr. moved to compel the filing of a complete inventory and accounting of Billy's estate. The complete inventory subsequently filed by John listed the estate's interests in three parcels of real estate, including the estate's purported one-third interest in a commercial building ("the subject property"). The inventory estimated the value of the estate's interest in the subject property as $113,033.33.
Billy, John, and John's ex-wife, Jenna Skidmore, had purchased the subject property in 1998 and constructed a 5,000-square-foot building designed for a mixed-use development. The 1998 deed devised the subject property to Billy, John, and Jenna as tenants in common. When John and Jenna divorced in 2004, Jenna agreed to be divested of her interest in the subject property as part of the divorce agreement. On August 19, 2004, Billy, John, and Jenna allegedly signed a warranty deed conveying the subject property to John and Billy as joint tenants with rights of survivorship, but, as explained below, that deed was not recorded at the time. According to John, he had represented that the estate had a one-third interest in the subject property in his inventory to the probate court based on his mistaken belief that Jenna had transferred her one-third interest in the subject property to him -- meaning that he owned a two-thirds interest in the subject property and the estate owned the remaining one-third interest.
In August 2022, Billy Jr. filed a motion to compel a final settlement in the probate court. In his motion, he asked the probate court to order that Billy Jr. be paid his rightful share of his father's estate. Specifically, he argued that his intestate interest in the real property was alone valued at $173,466.67. He further argued that he was entitled to a share of the reasonable rental value of the real property that he alleged John did -- or should have -- collected as administrator of the estate. According to Billy Jr., the value of his share in the rental proceeds amounted to an additional $173,550.
A hearing on Billy Jr.'s motion to compel a final settlement took place in October 2022. At that hearing, John apparently admitted that, although he had been collecting rent on all three parcels of real property listed in the complete inventory, he had never -- in seven years -- opened an estate account. Instead, he had been depositing the rental proceeds into his own personal account -- thereby comingling the estate's moneys with his personal moneys.
In November 2022, the probate court ordered John to file a partial settlement and accounting of the estate, which he submitted on December 14, 2022. In that filing, John asserted that he had recently "obtained an [Employer Identification Number for the estate] and established a [separate business] bank account" to avoid the commingling of estate and nonestate assets. He also enclosed statements detailing -for all the years of the estate's administration -- the rental income from the estate's properties and the expenses related to the administration of the estate. Those statements reflected a negative cash flow and, according to John, demonstrated that renting the properties had not been profitable.
In March 2023, Billy Jr. moved the probate court to remove John as administrator of the estate and appoint Billy Jr. as the successor administrator charged with selling the estate's real property. In addition, he asked the probate court to strike the partial settlement and accounting filed by John -- arguing that it was not, as required by § 43 313, Ala. Code 1975, sworn to under oath. Finally, Billy Jr. asked that, upon the sale of the estate's real property, the probate court award him (1) one-sixth of the net proceeds from the subject property, (2) one-half of the net proceeds from the other two properties owned by the estate, and (3) one-half of the value of the undistributed rents.
On March 31, 2023, the probate court entered an order awarding Billy Jr. successor letters of administration. In its order, the probate court also authorized Billy Jr. to list the estate's real property for sale but cautioned that he would still need to seek the probate court's specific authorization to sell those properties in accordance with §§ 43-2-442 through 43-2-444, Ala. Code 1975. The probate court further ordered (1) that John turn over the "keys to the real property and any and all monies in [his] possession which were paid as rent on the above properties since [Billy's] death" and (2) that Billy Jr. deposit all such moneys into an estate account. The probate court, however, did not reach a decision as to the distribution of the estate's assets.
Shortly thereafter, Billy Jr. retained a realtor to list the subject property for sale and received an offer to purchase the property for approximately $300,000, which he accepted. On July 12, 2023, Billy Jr.
petitioned the probate court to approve the sale of the subject property to the prospective buyer. A hearing on Billy Jr.'s petition was set for September 7, 2023. John alleges that he initially had no intention of opposing the sale because, he says, he mistakenly believed (1) that Billy Jr. was entitled to one-half of Billy's one-third interest in the subject property and (2) that he owned the remaining five-sixths of the subject property -- two-thirds as a tenant in common and one-sixth as Billy's intestate heir. However, according to John, in advance of closing, the realtor handling the transaction notified him of a judgment entered against his ex-wife, Jenna, that was recorded as a judgment lien against the subject property, and he subsequently discovered that the 2004 deed divesting Jenna of her interest in the subject property had not been recorded.
John alleges that, in an effort to remove the cloud from the title to the subject property, he began searching his father's records for the 2004 deed and that he discovered the 2004 deed conveying the subject property to him and John as joint tenants with rights of survivorship. According to John, it was only then that he appreciated the significance of the survivorship language in the 2004 deed. Following his discovery, on July
19, 2023, John recorded the deed in the probate court.
While these events were unfolding, the prospective buyer withdrew from the contract to purchase the subject property. Although Billy Jr. was advised of these developments, he did not withdraw his petition to sell the subject property upon the terms of the now terminated contract. Instead, at the September 7, 2023, hearing on Billy Jr.'s petition, counsel for Billy Jr. asked the probate court to adjudicate the validity of the 2004 deed recorded on July 19, 2023.
Counsel for John countered that Billy Jr.'s petition was mooted due to the prospective buyer's termination of the purchase contract, explaining that there was "[n]othing for the [c]ourt [to] rule on because there's no pending contract sale." Counsel for John further argued that, pursuant to the 2004 deed, the subject property became John's property upon Billy's death. According to him, moreover, the issue whether the 2004 deed was valid had to be resolved in the circuit court and was beyond the probate court's limited jurisdiction. The probate court nevertheless decided to proceed with the hearing and take the issue of the deed's validity under advisement.
Outcome:
On September 19, 2023, the probate court signed a judgment
finding that the subject property "is owned as follows: one third (1/3) by John Skidmore, one-third (1/3) by Jenna Skidmore, and one-third (1/3) by Billy Skidmore (the Deceased)" -- effectively invalidating the 2004 deed recorded on July 19, 2023. Although the judgment was signed on September 19, 2023, John alleges that the probate court filed and issued its judgment to the parties via email on September 20, 2023. That same day, John petitioned to remove the administration of the estate from the probate court to the circuit court. On September 25, 2023, the circuit court granted the petition and ordered the administration of the estate removed.
Reversed and remanded
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: