Huggins v. Linger

1

Janet Huggins v. Jana Linger

No. CL-2023-0654

Alabama Court of Civil Appeals

October 25, 2024

Appeal from Monroe Circuit Court (CV-22-900010)

PER CURIAM

Janet Huggins ("Huggins") appeals from a judgment of the Monroe Circuit Court ("the trial court") approving the final settlement of the conservatorship of Vernon Charles Huggins ("the ward") and ratifying two earlier partial or intermediate settlements that had been approved by the Probate Court of Monroe County ("the probate court") when it had jurisdiction over the conservatorship. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

Background

By order dated September 13, 2013, the probate court adjudicated the ward an incapacitated person and appointed Jana Linger who is the ward's granddaughter and Huggins's daughter, the conservator of his property.

On October 31, 2014, Linger filed a petition for a partial settlement of the conservatorship. The probate court set Linger's partial-settlement petition for a hearing on November 25, 2014, and appointed a guardian ad litem to protect the ward's interests at that hearing. Linger served Huggins with notice of the filing of the October 31 2014, partialsettlement petition and the November 25, 2014 hearing regarding that petition.

Linger supported her October 31, 2014, petition with a written document titled "register report," which, she said her attorney had compiled from the conservatorship's bank statements. The register report listed and described each receipt of funds by the conservatorship by date and source and described each expenditure of funds by the conservatorship by date, payee, and purpose. The record on appeal does not contain any bank statements, canceled checks, receipts, invoices, or other documents verifying the accuracy of the "register report" that Linger filed in support of the October 31, 2014, partial-settlement petition.

At the hearing before the trial court in the present case, discussed infra, Linger testified that she had provided the probate court with receipts and invoices evidencing the expenditures reflected on the register report; however, she said, the probate judge decided that only the register report would be introduced into evidence, and the receipts and invoices were thereafter discarded. Linger testified that the receipts and invoices had been in the possession of her then attorney, who had subsequently died, and that, after that attorney's death, Huggins had obtained his file and would not give Linger access to it. During her testimony at the hearing before the trial court in the present action, Huggins produced a thumb drive that, according to her, contained Linger's deceased attorney's file. Huggins testified that she had reviewed Linger's deceased attorney's file and that it did not contain any information pertaining to the accounting of the conservatorship. Neither party introduced either the thumb drive itself or a paper printout of its contents into evidence.

Huggins testified that she had not filed a written objection to Linger's October 31, 2014, partial-settlement petition before the probate court approved it. Following the November 25, 2014, hearing regarding the October 31, 2014, partial-settlement petition, the probate court, that same day, entered an order approving the October 31, 2014, partial settlement. That order also directed Linger to pay her attorney $1,344.47 and to pay court costs totaling $437, which included a fee in the amount of $300 for the guardian ad litem.

Sometime in 2015, Huggins wrote the probate judge a letter asking him to remove Linger from her position as the ward's conservator, but the probate judge did not do so.

On August 24, 2018, Linger filed a petition for partial settlement of the conservatorship for the period September 16, 2015, through May 31, 2018. The probate court entered an order setting the partial-settlement petition for a hearing on September 19, 2018, and appointing a guardian ad litem to protect the ward's interests at that hearing. Linger served Huggins with notice of the filing of the August 24, 2018, partialsettlement petition and the September 19, 2018, hearing regarding that petition.

In support of the August 24, 2018, partial-settlement petition, Linger filed bank statements for two checking accounts that she had used in administering the ward's estate. The bank statements included thumbnail images of the deposit slips reflecting her deposits of the funds that the conservatorship had received into those accounts. The bank statements also included thumbnail images of the front page of the checks that had been written on those accounts expending funds from the conservatorship. The thumbnail images of the deposit slips were annotated with handwritten notes indicating the source of the funds deposited, and the thumbnail images of the checks were annotated with handwritten notes indicating the purpose of each check. However, Linger did not file any receipts or invoices verifying the accuracy of either the handwritten notes regarding the deposit slips or the handwritten notes regarding the checks. Huggins testified that she had not filed a written objection to Linger's August 27, 2018, partial-settlement petition before the probate court approved it.

On September 19, 2018, the probate court held the scheduled hearing and, that same day, entered an order approving the August 24, 2018, partial-settlement petition. That order also directed Linger to pay her attorney $950 and to pay court costs totaling $1,077, which included a guardian ad litem fee in the amount of $250.

The ward died testate on December 13, 2020. The ward's will, which he had executed on April 26, 2009, nominated Judy Huggins Whitener, one of his daughters, as his executrix and nominated Huggins as his alternate executrix. After the ward's death, Whitener declined to serve as the ward's executrix, and Huggins petitioned the probate court to admit the ward's will to probate and to grant her letters testamentary. On May 7, 2019, the probate court admitted the ward's will to probate and granted Huggins letters testamentary.

On May 10, 2022, the trial court entered an order removing the ward's conservatorship from the probate court to the trial court. On December 28, 2022, Linger filed a petition for final settlement of the conservatorship in the trial court.

The trial court entered an order setting Linger's final-settlement petition for hearing on February 6, 2023, and appointing a guardian ad litem. Linger began her testimony on February 6, 2023; however, before she completed her testimony, the trial court, at Huggins's request, recessed the hearing until April 11, 2023, so that Huggins's attorney could confer with her because she was not present in court on February 6, 2023. On March 23, 2023, Huggins filed a written objection to the final settlement and a motion to reopen the partial settlements that the probate court had approved when the conservatorship was pending in that court. Among other things, Huggins's objection to the final settlement asserted that Linger had failed to file vouchers in support of her accounting as required by Alabama law.

On April 11, 2023, the trial court resumed the hearing that it had begun on February 6, 2023. At that hearing, Linger completed her testimony, and Huggins testified. During the hearing, the witnesses referred to documents that supported the final-settlement petition; however, they were neither filed with that petition nor introduced into evidence at the hearing and, therefore, are not in the record on appeal. After both parties had rested their cases, both parties and the trial court agreed on the record that both parties would file posttrial briefs on May 10, 2023.

However, on May 8, 2023, two days before the deadline for the parties to file their posttrial briefs, the trial court entered a final judgment approving the final settlement, ratifying the two partial settlements that the probate court had previously approved, and awarding Linger a commission in the amount of $42,775 for her service as the ward's conservator. On May 10, 2023, the day the trial court and the parties had agreed that both parties would file their posttrial briefs, Huggins filed a postjudgment motion and a letter brief. In her letter brief, Huggins presented the arguments that, she said, she would have presented in her posttrial brief if the trial court had afforded her an opportunity to file that brief before entering its final judgment. Huggins's letter brief asserted, among other things, that the trial court should not approve either the partial settlements or the final settlement because, Huggins said, Linger had not supported either of her partial-settlement petitions or her final-settlement petition with vouchers as required by Alabama law.

On August 8, 2023, Huggins's postjudgment motion was denied by operation of law pursuant to Rule 59.1, Ala. R. Civ. P. Thereafter, Huggins timely filed a notice of appeal to this court. On December 20, 2023, this court transferred the appeal to our supreme court for lack of jurisdiction. On July 17, 2024, our supreme court transferred the appeal back to this court.

Standard of Review

This appeal presents only a question of statutory interpretation. Linger argues that the ore tenus rule dictates that we affirm the trial court's judgment because, she says, that rule requires us to presume that the trial court's findings in her favor are correct. However, the ore tenus rule does not govern our review of this case; instead, our review is de novo because the only question presented is one of law. See Scott Bridge Co. v. Wright, 883 So.2d 1221, 1223 (Ala. 2003) (An appellate court "reviews de novo a trial court's interpretation of a statute, because only a...