“Express Survivorship” & “Alternative Devise” Defeat Alabama’s Antilapse Statute – Comprehensive Commentary on Timothy Brian Johnson & Phillip Barnes v. Judith Mayers, SC-2025-0297

I. Introduction

In Johnson & Barnes v. Mayers, decided 27 June 2025, the Supreme Court of Alabama resolved whether the State’s antilapse statute (§ 43-8-224, Ala. Code 1975) applies when a will contains both (1) words of survivorship and (2) an alternative devise if all named beneficiaries fail to survive the testator. The litigation pitted nephews Timothy Brian Johnson and Phillip Barnes (“Appellants”) against their aunt Judith Mayers (“Appellee”), the sole surviving sibling-beneficiary of the testator, Samuel D. Johnson.

The Court affirmed the Lamar Circuit Court, holding that Samuel’s unambiguous will supplanted the default provisions of the antilapse statute: because it (a) demanded survivorship and (b) set a contingent gift to “nearest living heirs” only if none of the named siblings survived, the entire residuary estate vested exclusively in the lone survivor, Mayers.

II. Summary of the Judgment

• Jurisdiction: Probate administration had been removed to circuit court; declaratory judgment construing the will was deemed final and appealable without Rule 54(b) certification under § 12-22-20.
• Standard of review: De novo for will construction.
• Holding: The survivorship clause (“If none of such persons shall survive me…”) and the alternative devise evidenced the testator’s contrary intent; therefore, § 43-8-224 did not operate; Mayers takes 100 % of the residue.
• Disposition: Judgment affirmed.

III. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited & Distinguished

1. Norwood v. Barclay, 298 So.3d 1051 (Ala. 2019) – Antilapse applied where sole beneficiary predeceased and will lacked survivorship language. Johnson distinguishes: here survivorship language exists.
2. Shirley v. Dawkins, 369 So.3d 127 (Ala. 2022) – Equal-share clause absent survivorship; antilapse applied to issues of a deceased child. Again distinguished.
3. Harrison v. Morrow, 977 So.2d 457 (Ala. 2007) – Confirmed de novo standard for will construction; cited for methodology, not outcome.
4. Out-of-state persuasive authorities (e.g., Polen v. Baker, 752 N.E.2d 258 (Ohio 2001); Ruotolo v. Tietjen, 890 A.2d 166 (Conn. App. 2006)) – Majority rule that explicit survivorship defeats antilapse; Alabama joins this majority.

B. Legal Reasoning

The opinion proceeds in three steps:

1. Statutory hierarchy. Section 43-8-222 commands that a testator’s express intent overrides the “rules of construction” in Article 8, including the antilapse statute.
2. Textual reading of the Will. Article II conveys the estate (i) to the father if living; (ii) “in the event that such person does not survive me,” to four siblings “equally”; (iii) “If none of such persons shall survive me,” then to nearest living heirs. The Court treats “none” as a collective survivorship requirement: even one surviving sibling nullifies the fallback clause.
3. Definitional limits of antilapse. The statute is default only — it salvages gifts when the testator neglected to plan for predeceasing devisees. Here, the testamentary language demonstrates he did plan, thus opting out.

C. Impact on Alabama Probate Practice

• Clarity for Drafters & Litigators. Alabama now squarely aligns with jurisdictions treating any clear survivorship language, plus an alternative devise, as an express intent defeating § 43-8-224. Will-drafters can confidently rely on phrases like “if none survive me.”
• Reduction of Antilapse Litigation. Fewer contests where wills mirror Johnson – litigation will turn instead on whether wording truly conveys survivorship.
• Estate Planning Best Practices. Lawyers should insert (i) explicit survivorship conditions and (ii) fallback beneficiaries to pre-empt unintended lapses.
• Probate Administration. Administrators can seek declaratory relief mid-administration and obtain immediate appellate review without Rule 54(b), reinforcing the “continuing-proceeding” concept in probate.

IV. Complex Concepts Simplified

Antilapse Statute

A default rule that substitutes a deceased beneficiary’s descendants in the beneficiary’s place, preventing the gift from “lapsing” and passing by intestacy.

Words of Survivorship

Will language expressly requiring a beneficiary to outlive the testator to take the gift (e.g., “if he survives me,” “to those of my children living at my death”).

Alternative (or Contingent) Devise

A backup gift that becomes effective only if the primary beneficiaries cannot take (e.g., “If none of my siblings survive me, then to my heirs at law”).

Letters of Administration cum testamento annexo

Authority granted where a will is admitted to probate but no named executor can serve; the administrator acts “with the will annexed.”

De Novo Review

An appellate court gives no deference to the trial court on issues of pure law or document interpretation; it starts from scratch.

Declaratory Judgment in Probate

A lawsuit (often inside the estate administration) asking the court to declare rights under a will; such a declaration is treated as a final judgment even though estate settlement continues.

V. Conclusion

Johnson v. Mayers cements a critical interpretative rule in Alabama succession law: when a will contains unambiguous survivorship language and a backup devise, the antilapse statute yields. The decision harmonizes Alabama with the prevailing national view, guides estate planners toward precision, streamlines probate litigation, and underscores the judiciary’s commitment to honoring a testator’s expressed intent over statutory defaults.