Skidmore v. Skidmore, [Ms. SC-2024-0048, Aug. 23, 2024] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. 2024). The Court (Cook, J.; Parker, C.J., and Wise, Sellers, and Stewart, JJ., concur) reverses the Marshall Circuit’s order denying John Skidmore’s motion to alter, amend or vacate the probate court’s order ruling on the ownership of real property.
Prior to removal to circuit court, in the administration of the estate of Billy Skidmore, the Marshall Probate Court adjudicated competing claims of ownership to real property and avoided a survivorship deed so that “the property passed through the decedent’s estate rather than outside the estate.” Ms. *2.
The Court first explains “when the administration of an estate is removed to the circuit court, the circuit court ‘pick[s] up the proceedings where the probate court had left off.’ Campbell v. Taylor, 159 So. 3d 4, 11 (Ala. 2014).” Ms. *14, some internal quotation marks omitted. Therefore, “the circuit court could properly consider [John’s] timely filed postjudgment motion seeking relief from the probate court’s judgment.” Ms. *16. Because John argued the probate court’s order avoiding the deed was void for lack of jurisdiction, his motion is best viewed as seeking relief under Rule 60(b)(4). The denial of a Rule 60(b) motion itself is “a final judgment that will independently support an appeal.” Ms. *19.
The Court holds the probate court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the property dispute and void the deed because “probate courts ‘cannot take jurisdiction of a cause or administer remedies except as provided by statute.’ Lappan [v. Lovette, 577 So. 2d 893, 896 (Ala. 1991)].” Ms. *23.
The Court “recognizes[s] that the determination of title is incidental to a probate court’s exercise of jurisdiction pursuant to § 12-13-1(b)(5), Ala. Code 1975 [sale and disposition of property belonging to intestate estate], [but] that code section does not authorize probate courts to adjudicate disputes over title to real property.” Ms. *27, emphasis in the original.