Preview:

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance
sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334)
229-0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made
before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.

SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA

OCTOBER TERM, 2007-2008

1050721

Bobby Joe Yeager and Dorothy Duncan
v.
Wendy Lucy et al.
Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court, Bessemer Division
(CV-01-175)

BOLIN, Justice.

Bobby Joe Yeager and Dorothy Duncan appeal from the trial
court's judgment in favor of Wendy Lucy, Tanya Taylor, and
Edward Woodruff in this declaratory-judgment action.

Facts and Procedural History

Edna Yeager and T.R. Yeager divorced in 1978. Following

the divorce, Edna obtained title to their marital home, which

was located in Jefferson County. Edna married Larry James

Woodruff in 1987. Both had adult children from their previous

marriages, and no children were born of the marriage.  Edna

and Larry lived in Edna's house. On April 17, 1990, Edna

executed a deed to the house; that deed provided, in pertinent

part, as follows:

"To the undersigned grantor or grantors in hand
paid by the Grantees herein, the receipt whereof is
acknowledged, we, Edna I. Yeager (herein referred to
as grantors)[sic] do grant, bargain, sell and convey
unto Edna Yeager Woodruff, a married woman, and her
children, Dorothy Marie Dunkin[sic] & Bobby Joe
Yeager (herein referred to as grantees) as joint
tenants with right of survivorship, the following
real estate situated in Jefferson County. ...

"Said Edna Yeager Woodruff hereby retains a life
estate in and to said property hereinabove
described, with the measure of 'life' being the
existence of Edna Yeager Woodruff.

"And I (we) do for myself (ourselves) and for my
(our) heirs executors, and administrators covenant
with the said GRANTEES, their heirs and assigns,
that I am (we are) lawfully seized in fee simple of
said premises; that they are free from all
encumbrances unless otherwise noted above, that I
(we) have a good right to sell and convey the same
as aforesaid; that I (we) will and my (our) heirs,
executors and administrators shall warrant and
defend the same to the said GRANTEES, their heirs

and assigns forever, against the lawful claims of

all persons."
(Capitalization in original.) The deed was signed by Edna; it
was not signed by Larry.

Edna and Larry lived in the house until September 1997
when Larry allegedly abandoned Edna when she was diagnosed
with cancer. Larry established residence in Virginia and died
intestate in 1999. Edna died intestate in 1998.

On February 14, 2001, Larry's adult children, Wendy Lucy,
Tanya Taylor, and Edward Woodruff (hereinafter referred to as
"the Woodruff siblings"), filed a declaratory-judgment action
against Edna's adult children, Bobby Joe Yeager and Dorothy
Duncan (hereinafter referred to as "the Yeager siblings"),
regarding their rights as Larry's heirs arising out of the
April 17, 1990, deed executed by Edna. The Woodruff siblings
sought a declaration that they were entitled to Larry's share
of the property. The Yeager siblings answered the complaint
and asserted that Larry had no inheritable interest in the
property and that Larry had abandoned Edna.1

1The personal representatives appointed to administer both
Edna's estate and Larry's estate were added as defendants; the
personal representatives are not parties to this appeal.

The case proceeded to trial on January 31, 2006. At the

close of the Woodruff siblings' case-in-chief, the Yeager

siblings presented their first witness. During the witness's

testimony, the trial judge called the counsel for the parties

into his chambers. Subsequently, the trial judge stated:

"All right. Ladies and gentlemen, let me go
ahead and let you know how I'm going to rule on this
case. Let me say, first of all, that we have tried
the case pretty broadly. And I spoke with the
attorneys. And we really tried -- after talking and
narrowing down what we are talking about, the only
issue we have here today is whether or not that deed
executed on April 17, 1990, was a valid deed. The
Code of the State of Alabama provides that no deed
of the homestead by a married person shall be valid
without the voluntary signature and consent of the
husband or wife.

"The testimony is undisputed that they were
married in 1990. Because they were married and
because of this Code section, the deed would be
invalid. And there may be some -- I think there
would be some issues raised that may very well be
issues in the probate matter that is still pending.
As far as what we have here, which is a separate
action for declaratory judgment, that's all I had to
decide on.  And it's really a very simple and
straightforward case in that way. I have been
pretty patient, but I decided to go ahead and let
the attorneys know what I was thinking on it. And
so at this time that will be the decision.  I will
get you all a copy of a written decision on it in
the mail."

On February 1, 2006, the trial court entered an order

declaring that the April 17, 1990, deed was invalid. The

Yeager siblings appeal.

Standard of Review

The trial court's judgment followed a bench trial, at

which the court heard ore tenus evidence. "'When a judge in

a nonjury case hears oral testimony, a judgment based on

findings of fact based on that testimony will be presumed

correct and will not be disturbed on appeal except for a plain

and palpable error.'" Smith v. Muchia, 854 So. 2d 85, 92 (Ala.

2003)(quoting Allstate Ins. Co. v. Skelton, 675 So. 2d 377,

379 (Ala. 1996)).

"'The ore tenus rule is grounded upon the principle
that when the trial court hears oral testimony it
has an opportunity to evaluate the demeanor and
credibility of witnesses.' Hall v. Mazzone, 486 So.
2d 408, 410 (Ala. 1986). The rule applies to
'disputed issues of fact,' whether the dispute is
based entirely upon oral testimony or upon a
combination of oral testimony and documentary
evidence. Born v. Clark, 662 So. 2d 669, 672 (Ala.
1995). The ore tenus standard of review provides:

"'[W]here the evidence has been [presented]
ore tenus, a presumption of correctness
attends the trial court's conclusion on
issues of fact, and this Court will not
disturb the trial court's conclusion unless
it is clearly erroneous and against the
great weight of the evidence, but will

affirm the judgment if, under any
reasonable aspect, it is supported by
credible evidence.'"

Reed v. Board of Trs. for Alabama State Univ., 778 So. 2d 791,
795 (Ala. 2000) (quoting Raidt v. Crane, 342 So. 2d 358, 360
(Ala. 1977)). However, "that presumption [of correctness] has
no application when the trial court is shown to have
improperly applied the law to the facts." Ex parte Board of
Zoning Adjustment of Mobile, 636 So. 2d 415, 417 (Ala. 1994).
Analysis

The Yeager siblings argue that the trial judge erred in
denying them the opportunity to present a full defense when he
announced his ruling before they had had an opportunity to
present all of their witnesses. They argue that, in denying
them the opportunity to present a defense, the trial court
violated Art. I,

Download 1050721.pdf

Alabama Law