Daniel Griffin Thomas v. Christopher Bruce Thomas, individually and as personal representative of the Estate of Ernest Bruce Thomas

── Daniel Griffin Thomas v. Christopher Bruce Thomas, individually and as personal representative of the Estate of Ernest Bruce Thomas ── Court: Supreme Court of Alabama Date: May 15, 2026 Author: Brady Mendheim Category: General Rel: May 15, 2026 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) 229-0650), 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, 2025-2026 _________________________ SC-2025-0804 _________________________ Daniel Griffin Thomas v. Christopher Bruce Thomas, individually and as personal representative of the Estate of Ernest Bruce Thomas, deceased Appeal from Hale Circuit Court (CV-24-900030) MENDHEIM, Justice. Daniel Griffin Thomas appeals from an order entered by the Hale Circuit Court declaring that he was not the biological child of Ernest SC-2025-0804 Bruce Thomas, deceased, for purposes of inheriting from Ernest's estate. Because the appeal is from a void order, we reverse and remand. Ernest was married to Patti C. Thomas from 1980 to 1990. Christopher Bruce Thomas and Daniel were born to Patti during the marriage, the latter being born in September 1985. In early 1990, the circuit court entered a divorce judgment regarding the marriage of Ernest and Patti ("the divorce judgment"), but it is unclear from the record before us what the custody terms were in the divorce judgment. The divorce judgment was modified in 1999 to award primary physical custody of Christopher to Ernest and primary physical custody of Daniel to Patti. Ernest died intestate in February 2024. In March 2024, Christopher filed in the Hale Probate Court a petition for letters of administration regarding Ernest's estate. In the petition for letters of administration, Christopher alleged that Daniel was not the biological child of Ernest, that Christopher was the only heir of Ernest, and that Daniel was not entitled to inherit any part of Ernest's estate. On April 4, 2024, the probate court granted Christopher letters of administration regarding Ernest's estate. 2 SC-2025-0804 On May 14, 2024, Christopher, as an heir and as the personal representative of Ernest's estate, filed in the circuit court a petition for the removal of the administration of Ernest's estate from the probate court to the circuit court. The May 2024 removal petition, which was signed by Christopher's counsel, alleged that Christopher was an heir of Ernest and the personal representative of Ernest's estate, that "there ha[d] been no final settlement of said … estate," and that the estate could be better administered in the circuit court. Christopher concedes that the May 2024 petition was not verified as required by Ala. Code 1975, § 12-11-41, which states: "The administration of any estate may be removed from the probate court to the circuit court at any time before a final settlement thereof, by any heir … [or] administrator … of any such estate, without assigning any special equity; and an order of removal must be made by the court, upon the filing of a sworn petition by any such heir … [or] administrator … of any such estate, reciting that the petitioner is such heir … [or] administrator … and that, in the opinion of the petitioner, such estate can be better administered in the circuit court than in the probate court." Also on May 14, 2024, the circuit court entered an order removing the administration of Ernest's estate from the probate court to the circuit court (the estate-administration proceeding in the circuit court i