University of Alabama Hospital and University of Alabama Health Services Foundation v. Megan Huseman, as personal representative of the Estate of Thomas J. Huseman, (Appeal from Shelby Circuit Court: CV-22-336).

• Court: Supreme Court of Alabama
• Decided: May 17, 2024
• Docket: SC-2023-0581
• Status: Published

Opinion

Rel: May 17, 2024

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, 2023-2024

_________________________

SC-2023-0581 _________________________

University of Alabama Hospital and University of Alabama Health Services Foundation

v.

Megan Huseman, as personal representative of the Estate of Thomas J. Huseman, deceased

Appeal from Shelby Circuit Court (CV-22-336)

WISE, Justice.

AFFIRMED. NO OPINION.

See Rule 53(a)(1) and (a)(2)(F), Ala. R. App. P.

Parker, C.J., and Shaw, Bryan, Stewart, and Mitchell, JJ., concur. SC-2023-0581

Sellers, J., dissents, with opinion.

Mendheim, J., dissents.

Cook, J., recuses himself.

2 SC-2023-0581

SELLERS, Justice (dissenting).

I respectfully dissent. This appeal concerns two verified statements

of claim filed in the Shelby Probate Court ("the probate court") against

the estate of Thomas J. Huseman, deceased ("the estate"). On June 13,

2022, the University of Alabama Hospital in Birmingham ("the hospital")

filed a verified statement of claim against the estate in the amount of

$244,763.65, referencing a specific account number relating to the

decedent. On that same day, the University of Alabama Health Services

Foundation ("the foundation") filed a verified statement of claim against

the estate in the amount of $42,677.85, referencing another specific

account number relating to the decedent. Megan Huseman, the personal

representative of the estate, filed a document entitled "Dispute of

Claims," arguing that they should be rejected because, she said, they

were "devoid of any explanation for the goods or services allegedly

provided, the dates of such sales/services, any agreement by the decedent

to pay the amounts stated, or quite literally ANY information upon which

the [personal representative] can determine their nature and validity."

(Capitalization in original.) The administration of the estate was

thereafter removed from the probate court to the Shelby Circuit Court.

3 SC-2023-0581

The hospital and the foundation filed a response to the "Dispute of

Claims," arguing that the claims were clearly filed by medical providers,

that each claim was verified and for a definite amount, and that each

claim included the decedent's account number. Following a hearing, the

circuit court entered an order denying the claims without stating its

rationale; this Court affirms that order, without an opinion. I believe

that the record before us adequately establishes that the claims were

sufficiently stated. I am also concerned that the circuit court's order

summarily denying the claims without providing a legal or factual basis

for doing so violates the claimants' due-process rights.

Section 43-2-352, Ala. Code 1975, the statute of nonclaims, has

very limited requirements; it states, in relevant part:

"Every such claim or statement thereof so presented must be verified by the oath of the claimant or some person having knowledge or the correctness thereof, and that the amount claimed is justly due, or to become due, after allowing all proper credits. Any defect or insufficiency in the affidavit may be supplied by amendment at any time. All claims not presented within six months from the granting of letters testamentary … shall be forever barred."

"The purpose of the statute of non-claims is to give notice to the

personal representative of the nature, character and amount of the claim

and to distinguish it from other claims so that it may be investigated and 4 SC-2023-0581

the question of liability determined." First Nat'l Bank of Birmingham v.

Chichester, 352 So. 2d 1371, 1373-74 (Ala. Civ. App. 1977). A verified

statement of claim need not conform to technical rules of pleading and

need not be in any particular form. See Merchants Nat'l Bank of Mobile

v. Cotnam, 250 Ala. 316, 34 So. 2d 122 (1948) (noting that a verified claim

or verified statement thereof is not required to be as specific as formal

pleadings). It is clear that the verified statements of claim filed by the

hospital and the foundation evidence medical debts. The statements

include the name, address, and telephone number of the hospital and the

foundation, respectively. Each statement also includes the decedent's

account number affiliated with the debt. Finally, there were no similar

claims against the estate pending. In fact, the only other claim filed

against the estate was from a credit-card company. Notably, the death

certificate filed by the personal representative in the probate court listed

the decedent's immediate cause of death as "Acute Myeloblastic

Leukemia," which appears to confirm that the decedent was a patient of

both the hospital and the foundation. As the hospital and the foundation

point out, the personal representative is the daughter of the decedent and

was living with him at the time of his death. To claim that she had no

5 SC-2023-0581

knowledge regarding the basis of the two medical claims is, thus,

questionable. Although the personal representative may dispute the

amounts of the claims, she cannot dispute that medical services were

provided to the decedent for which compensation would be due. This case

is more akin to a debtor-creditor case, in which the total amount of the

debt may be disputed, but the existence of the debt cannot be. Because

the verified statements of claim contain all the facts necessary to make a

prima facie showing that the estate is lawfully indebted to both the

hospital and the foundation, I would reverse the trial court's order

denying their claims.