Alabama Supreme Court hears challenge to will clause that sends disputes to private advisory committee and threatens forfeiture

The Supreme Court of Alabama heard oral argument over whether a provision in the Banks family will that sends disputes to a private advisory committee and imposes forfeiture penalties can be enforced against a beneficiary who sought an inventory and accounting.

Chris Hamer, arguing for the appellant, told the court the case was "unprecedented" and said the dispute centers on a 19-year-old beneficiary, Grant Banks, who was declared to have forfeited his inheritance after seeking statutorily authorized information about the estate. Hamer said the trial court stayed proceedings and "delegated its judicial authority to an advisory committee" under terms of the will and that the committee's decision was treated as final and nonreviewable.

Hamer urged the court to construe forfeiture provisions narrowly under Alabama precedent, arguing that Alabama law "abhors a forfeiture" and that a petitioner seeking an inventory and accounting is exercising, not impeding, administration of an estate. He cited the Alabama Uniform Trust Code and case law requiring courts to have authority to order an accounting and to review fiduciaries’ actions.

Chip Browder, arguing for the appellee (the estate/executor), told the court the estate has been in litigation for about four years since the decedent, Rusty Banks, died and that several filings and events during that time constituted triggering events the estate contends fell within the will's dispute-resolution and forfeiture provisions. Browder identified three events the estate relied on as triggers: (1) filings for statutory exemptions and allowances in August 2022, (2) a conservatorship petition concerning Grant while he was a minor, and (3) a March 2024 petition for inventory and accounting. Browder said the will expressly authorized an advisory committee and that the decedent named one committee member, accountant Jimmy Johnson, with Johnson authorized to appoint other members.

Much of the argument turned on process and notice. Appellant counsel said the advisory committee procedures failed to provide due-process protections—no meaningful notice or hearing, no impartial neutrals, and compensation determined by the executor—and argued that the beneficiary did not consent to a private dispute-resolution forum. Counsel disputed whether supporting documentation for an IRS Form 706 (an estate tax inventory) had been provided to Grant's counsel; appellee counsel said a handwritten Form 706 and supporting materials ("approximately 250 pages") were delivered to the guardian ad litem in August 2022 and that a verbal agreement existed to provide additional business records subject to a confidentiality agreement. Counsel for Grant said no confidentiality agreement was received that conformed to the parties' understanding.

The court pressed both sides on legal precedent. Counsel cited older Alabama and out-of-state cases, including Donovan v. Wade (1881), Maddox v. Hartley (1832), Birmingham v. Graham (1918), and Republic Iron & Steel (1920), touching on the long-standing recognition of testamentary freedom and the limited circumstances in which conditions on inheritance have been enforced. Appellate justices repeatedly asked whether a will can waive a court's authority to order an accounting and whether sending probate disputes to private panels (described by some counsel as "umpires") without statutory authority or party consent is permissible.

Counsel clarified timing and representation: Grant attained majority on or about Oct. 13, 2024, and earlier filings and events took place while he was a minor and represented by a guardian ad litem (appointed in probate) and counsel. Appellee counsel said the advisory committee members were local business associates (Jimmy Johnson, Jeff Gunning, and Jared Key) and that the trial court's order directing disputes to the committee was not appealed when entered.

No ruling was made from the bench at argument. The court recessed and later adjourned after hearing both sides.

Provenance: Appellant's opening argument and discussion of forfeiture and advisory committee: transcript start 00:15:39 ("The case before the court this morning is unprecedented..."). Appellee's presentation re: 4 years of litigation and triggers: transcript start 00:32:04 ("For 4 years since the death of their father...").