Post-Probate Will Contest Jurisdiction and Cost Awards: Boykin v. Land

Introduction

Boykin v. Land (Supreme Court of Alabama, March 21, 2025) tackles two interrelated questions in estate litigation: (1) the extent of a circuit court’s subject-matter jurisdiction when a will is contested after probate under Ala. Code § 43-8-199; and (2) the proper allocation of “costs” (including attorney fees) under Ala. Code § 43-8-196. Kesean Boykin, Magen Brooke Grimes, Joseph Cain Culpepper, and Tracey Grimes (“the proponents”) appealed the invalidation of a 2020 will and deed devised by their step-grandmother Nancy Walker. Beatrice Land (“Beatrice”), Nancy’s sister, cross-appealed the trial court’s refusal to award her costs in challenging the will.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of Alabama:

Affirmed that the 2020 will is invalid for lack of testamentary capacity;
Held that a post-probate will contest properly brought under § 43-8-199 confers jurisdiction only to challenge the will—not inter vivos deeds;
Reversed the trial court’s invalidation of the 2020 deed for lack of jurisdiction;
Reversed the denial of Beatrice’s cost motion and remanded for the trial court to award her costs (including attorney fees) and decide who pays.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Daniel v. Moye (224 So. 3d 115, Ala. 2016) – interpreted §§ 43-8-190 and 43-8-198, permitting “pre-admission” will contests to be transferred from probate to circuit court.
Hooper v. Huey (293 Ala. 63, 300 So. 2d 100, 1974) – emphasized that a will must be “offered for probate” before it can be contested.
Branch v. Branch (347 So. 3d 239, Ala. 2021) – held that § 43-8-199 grants circuit courts jurisdiction over will contests filed within six months after probate, but § 43-8-199 does not extend to equitable claims like deed invalidation unless the entire estate administration is properly removed under § 12-11-41.
Ex parte Walter (202 Ala. 281, 80 So. 119, 1918) and Nesmith v. Vines (248 Ala. 72, 26 So. 2d 265, 1946) – held that collateral challenges (e.g., invalidating deeds) are not part of a pure will contest.
Clark v. Clark (287 Ala. 42, 247 So. 2d 361, 1971) through McGee v. McGee (91 So. 3d 659, Ala. 2012) – construed “costs” under § 43-8-196 to include attorney fees when a contesting party prevails.

Legal Reasoning

1. Will Contest Jurisdiction: • §§ 43-8-190 & 43-8-198 allow only pre-probate contests to transfer from probate to circuit court. • § 43-8-199 permits a person who has not yet contested a will in probate to bring a contest within six months after probate in circuit court. • Beatrice had not personally contested the 2020 will in probate, so § 43-8-199 furnished valid jurisdiction for her post-probate challenge. • The proponents’ “aiding and abetting” argument was rejected under Breeding v. Grantland and Alexander v. Alexander: mere assistance to another’s probate‐court paperwork does not strip one of § 43-8-199 rights.

2. Deed Contest Jurisdiction: • Branch v. Branch held that a post-probate will contest under § 43-8-199 cannot encompass collateral equitable claims (like invalidating an inter vivos deed). • To challenge a deed, a party must either (a) remove the entire estate administration to circuit court under § 12-11-41, or (b) have an appropriate personal representative bring a separate equitable action. • Because neither occurred here, the circuit court lacked power over the 2020 deed.

3. Testamentary Capacity and Weight of the Evidence: • Alabama presumes capacity, but a challenger must show the testator (1) knew her property, (2) knew her beneficiaries, and (3) understood she was making a will. • The jury heard extensive expert and lay testimony about Nancy’s dementia, delirium episodes, medication effects, lucid intervals, confused behavior, prior improper gift of the same vehicle, and witness observations. • Conflicting testimony on lucidity, medication side‐effects, and family dynamics presented a classic jury question; the trial court properly denied a new-trial motion under the “against the great weight of the evidence” standard.

4. Costs and Attorney Fees: • § 43-8-196 requires the losing contestant to pay costs “otherwise … by the plaintiff or out of the estate.” • Alabama case law interprets “costs” to include reasonable attorney fees when a contestant prevails (Clark v. Clark; Bleidt v. Kantor; Hart v. Jackson; Whitehurst v. Baker; McGee v. McGee). • The Supreme Court declined to overrule that line of authority and remanded for the trial court to calculate and award both non‐fee costs and attorney fees. The court must also decide whether the proponents or Nancy’s estate bears those amounts.

Impact

Confirms that § 43-8-199 is the exclusive vehicle for post-probate will contests by new contestants—but does not extend to collateral challenges like deed invalidation.
Reaffirms that probate-court aiding does not bar § 43-8-199 jurisdiction under Breeding/Alexander.
Clarity for estate practitioners: deeds must be attacked via proper estate administration or separate equity suits, not shoehorned into a will contest.
Affirms the right to recover attorney fees in successful will contests under § 43-8-196, reinforcing the deterrent effect on meritless challenges.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Testamentary Capacity: The minimum mental ability to know what property you own, whom you’re leaving it to, and that you’re making a will.
Lucid Interval: A clear‐minded episode when someone with chronic incapacity can understand and act rationally.
Subject-Matter Jurisdiction: Legal authority of a court to hear a particular type of dispute (e.g., probate court vs circuit court).
Will Contest Statutes: – § 43-8-190/198: transfer pre-probate contests; – § 43-8-199: new post-probate contests within six months; – § 12-11-41: removal of entire estate administration; – § 43-8-196: loser-pays costs (including fees).
Personal Representative: The executor/trix of an estate who brings claims on behalf of the decedent’s estate.

Conclusion

Boykin v. Land crystallizes two key principles for Alabama practitioners:

Post-probate will contests under § 43-8-199 only reach the validity of the will itself—deeds and other equitable claims require either estate removal or a separate suit by the personal representative.
Successful contestants are entitled to recover “costs” (including attorney fees) under § 43-8-196, and courts must allocate those expenses to the losing side or the estate.

These rules sharpen the dividing line between probate and circuit courts, guide litigants on procedural strategy, and underscore the financial risk of unwarranted challenges in estate disputes.