Dallas, et al. v. Hicks, etc., [Ms. SC-2023-0549, Mar. 22, 2024] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. 2024). The Court (Mitchell, J.; Parker, C.J., and Shaw, J., concur; Bryan and Mendheim, JJ., concur in the result) affirms the Tallapoosa Circuit Court’s finding that purported heirs of decedent’s estate were not lawful heirs and could not intervene in the administration of the decedent’s estate.
The purported heirs attempted to prove they were the decedent’s biological children born out of wedlock. The circuit court held a bench trial and heard ore tenus evidence. “‘[W]here a trial court has heard ore tenus testimony, … its judgment based upon that testimony is presumed correct and will be reversed only if … the judgment is found to be plainly and palpably wrong.’” LaFlore v. Huggins, [Ms. SC-2023-0254, Oct. 20, 2023] ___ So. 3d ___, ___ (Ala. 2023) (quoting Robinson v. Hamilton, 496 So. 2d 8, 10 (Ala. 1986)).
The Court reiterates that “[i]f a father-child relationship is in dispute, as it is here, the child must establish that the decedent is his father ‘by an adjudication before the death of the father’ or ‘thereafter by clear and convincing proof.’ §43-8-48(2)b., Ala. Code 1975.” Ms. *5. The purported heirs did not present any physical evidence of paternity, such as DNA tests or birth certificates. Therefore, the Court concludes that they did not provide “clear and convincing proof” that the decedent was their father. Ms. *8.